D.K Jain, J.— Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common questions of law in respect of assessment years 1964-1965 and 1965-1966:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings u/s 147(a) of the I.T Act, 1961, were validly initiated by the ITO?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had no material to hold that the sum of Rs. 25,518/- in the Assessment Year 1964-1965 and Rupees 44,619/- in the Assessment Year 1965-1966 represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources?”

2. Relevant facts, as found by the Tribunal, are that original assessments on the assessee, a Private Limited Company, for the said assessment years were completed on a total income of Rs. 50,843 for the assessment year 1964-1965 and on a loss of Rs. 82,997/- for the assessment year 1965-1966. On 17 August, 1967, the Income-tax Officer re-opened both the assessments by making the following notings in the order sheets:

“17-8-67: ASSESSMENT YEAR 1964-1965.

During the year ended 31-12-63 the assessee company introduced Fictitious loans in the books in the name of M/s Topan Dass Gopal Dass Rs. 10,000 and debit of interest to this penalty was also Fictitious. Facts about this loan were not truly disclosed. Action u/s 147(a)/148 is taken to assess this escaped income.

Sd/- I.T.O

17-8-67: ASSESSMENT YEAR 1965-1966.

During the year ended 31-12-64 the assessee company introduced Fictitious loans in the names of Topan Dass Gopal Dass 95,000/-, Faquirchand Lachman Dass Rs. 90,000/- Satish & Co. 1,08,000/- and Om Prakash & Co. 2,10,000/-. The debitraised in Books in respect of interest to these parties is also Fictitious. Escaped income is estimated at Rupees 5,50,000 approximate interest. Action under section 147(a)/148 is taken since facts about these loans were not properly disclosed.

Sd/- I.T.O”

3. During the course of re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1964-1965, the Income-tax officer found that the Hundi loans of Rs. 10,000/- in the name of M/s Topanlal Gopaldas and Rs. 25,000/- in the name of M/s Gopaldas Udhavdas were bogus cash credits and he thus, made an addition of Rs. 35,000/- as income from undisclosed sources to the originally assessed income of the assessee. He also disallowed the interest allegedly paid by the assessee on these loans. Similarly, while framing assessment for the year 1965-1966, the Income-tax Officer treated the Hundi loans, appearing in the books of account of the assessee in the names of M/s Faquirchand Lachmandas (Rs. 65,000/-) and M/s Topanlal Gopaldas (Rs. 95,000/-) as ingenuine and accordingly treated the same as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Interest claimed to have been paid on the said loans was also disallowed. This resulted in the assessee getting assessed on a total positive income of Rs. 66,623/- as against a net loss of Rs. 1,02,266 computed in the original assessment, as modified in the first appeal.

4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to re-open the two assessments and it was contended that the books of account containing the squared up loans in question having been produced at the time of original assessment, the Income-tax Officer had no valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the assessee company. The additions/disallowances made were challenged on merit also. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the validity of the re-assessment proceedings but on merits he held that in the case of M/s Topanlal Gopaldas, the assessee had been able to establish its identity and the transaction having been effected almost wholly through bank, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in treating the credits appearing in the name of the said firm as assessee's income from undisclosed sources. He, accordingly, deleted the additions of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 95,000/-(together with interest) made in assessment years 1964-1965 and 1965-1966 respectively. He, however, upheld the additions made on account of unexplained cash credits appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee in the names of M/s Gopaldas Udhavdas, in assessment year 1964-1965 and in the name of M/s Faquirchand Lachmandas in assessment year 1965-1966. Disallowance of interest on the said loans was also upheld.

5. The revenue accepted the first appellate order but the assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessee primarily challenged the propriety and legality of the assessment proceedings and it was urged that the orders of the Income-tax Officer did not show what information he had for initiating action under Section 148/147(a) of the Act and it was not established if any rational connection or direct nexus existed between the material coming to his notice and the formation of his belief that there had been escapement of income for the relevant assessment years. It was pleaded that the existence of these cash credits and the payment of interest thereon was fully reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee and the same were open to scrutiny by the Income-tax Officer at the time of original assessment.

6. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the facts of the case in the light of the, principles laid down in various judgments, cited before it by both the sides, as also the letter dated 26 April, 1967 received by the Income-tax Officer from the Assistant Direction of Inspection regarding bogus Hundi loan transactions conducted by the assessee, came to the conclusion that the re-assessment proceedings in respect of both the assessment years were validly initiated by the Income-tax Officer and the assessee had failed to establish genuineness of the deposits in question. Assessee's appeals were accordingly dismissed.

7. Thereafter the assessee moved an application before the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of the mistake in its order. In the application it was stated that in the file produced by the representative of the revenue before the Tribunal, except for a letter from the Assistant Director of Inspection, which only mentioned the names of three alleged fictitious lenders, there was no other material with the Income-tax Officer on the basis whereof he could form the belief that by reason of assessee's omission to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment years, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, therefore, while returning the finding that the proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act had been validly initiated, the Tribunal had referred to some different records of the procedings than the one produced before it in the course of hearing. It was pleaded that this being a mistake apparent from the record should be rectified. The assessee's application was rejected and it was held that the Tribunal had not looked into any other material which was not produced before it at the time of hearing. This, the Tribunal held, was clear from the following observations in para 7 of its order:—

“IN view of these contentions raised, we required the departmental representative to get produced the file in which the Income-tax Officer recorded the reasons and obtained sanction of the Commissioner for commencing reassessment proceedings. The same was produced. It was lying in a confidential folder. We found therefrom that the Income-tax Officer had received a letter dated 26-4-1967 from the Assistant Director of Inspection regarding bogus hundi loan transactions conducted by the assessce. The names of the three creditors as referred to above, were specifically mentioned. We apprised the assessee that this information had existed with the Income-tax Officer. The revenue however, did not allow further inspection of the file to the assessee on the ground that it contained confidential information and matters. It is thus clear that in the present case, the Income-tax Officer had definite information from the Assistant Director of Inspection of the revenue department about non-genuineness of the disputed cash credits.”

8. The assessee having failed to persuade the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 256(1) of the Act, filed an application under Section 256(2) of the Act and this Court vide its order dated 30 April, 1981 directed the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid questions.

9. Mr. S.K Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the condition precedent for the Income-lax Officer to assume jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act was not satisfied in the instant case inasmuch as no reasons have been recorded by him before issuing the notices for re-opening the assessments and secondly even if the notings made by the Income-tax Officer in the order sheets dated 17 August, 1967 are taken to be his “reasons” for initiating proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act, there was no material on the record which could form the basis for the Income-tax Officer having “reason to believe” that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment during the relevant years on account of omission on me part of the assessee to disclose true and full facts during the assessment proceedings. He maintained that though the assessee was not made aware of the contents of the Assistant Director of Inspection's lelter dated 26 April, 1967 but from the observations of the Tribunal on the said letter it was evident that the “information” contained therein was as vague and indefinite as in the case of the Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) and, therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in the said case, this “information” could not afford any basis to the Income-tax Officer for entertaining a reasonable belief to initiate proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act.

10. To appreciate the submissions made by Mr. Aggarwal, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Sections 147 and 148 of the Act, as they stood at the relevant time and material for the purpose of this reference read as under:

“147. Income escaping assessment.- If,

(a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or…………..

he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year…….”

“148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.—(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Income-tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section(2) of section 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so-far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section.

(2) The Income-tax Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so.”

11. From the plain language of the above Sections, it is clear that two conditions have to be satisfied before an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act in respect of an assessment. These are:

(1) The Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and;

(2) He must have reason to believe that such escapement was occasioned by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.

The two conditions must co-exist in order to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer. It is also imperative for the Income-tax Officer to record his reasons before initiating re-assessment proceedings as required by Section 148(2) of the Act.

12 There is a plethora of case law on the subject of re-assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act but we do not propose to burden the judgment by making a reference to them all because we find that the law on the issue has been succinctly re-stated thus by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment reported as Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. I.T.O, (1993) 203 ITR 456 as under:—

“From a combined review of the judgments of this Court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has reasons, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable to Income-tax has escaped assessment. He may start reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts had come to light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To that limited extent, the court may look into the conclusion arrived at by the Income-tax Officer and examine whether there was any material available on the record from which the requisite belief could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether that material had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief. It would be immaterial whether the Income-tax Officer, at the time of making the original assessment, could or could not have found by further enquiry or investigation, whether the transaction was genuine or not if, on the basis of subsequent information, the Income-tax Officer arrives at a conclusion, after satisfying the twin conditions prescribed in section 147(a) of the Act, that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of the material facts at the time of original assessment and, therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.”

13. In the present case it is not in dispute that before issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act the Income-tax Officer did make notings on the order sheets on 17 August, 1967(reproduced above) in respect of both the assessment years and we find no difficulty in holding that these notings meet the requirements of Section 148(2) of the Act. But the real question which falls for determination is whether there was any material available on the record of the assessee from which the Income-tax officer could form the requisite belief and whether that material had any rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the requisite belief because the contention of Mr. Aggarwal is that the information, if at all there is any, contained in the letter of the Assistant Director of Inspection's letter dated 26 April, 1967 and referred to by the Tribunal is vague and cannot justify the formation of any belief that assessee's income for the assessment years 1964-1965 and 1965-1966 has escaped assessment.

14. We are of the opinion that having regard to the facts found by the Tribunal, Mr. Aggarwal's contention is not well founded. In para 7 of its order, (extracted above), the Tribunal has clearly found as a fact that the Income-tax Officer had received a letter dated 26 April 1967 from the Assistant Director of Inspection regarding bogus hundi loan transactions conducted by the assessee. The names of the three creditors, as referred to above, were specifically mentioned. (emphasis added). We have little hesitation in upholding the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the information contained in the said letter was definite and there was a nexus and a rational connection between that information and the belief entertained by the Income-tax Officer before initiating reassessment proceedings. We are of the opinion that on the basis of the said letter of the Assistant Director of Inspection, the Income-tax Officer could legitimately form a reasonable belief that the said creditors had not advanced any money to the assessee in the assessment years. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in Lakhmani Mewal Das's case (supra). In Lakhmani Mewal Das's case the assessee, in his return, claimed deductions of certain sums paid by way of interest on the borrowings, including the one from Mohan Singh Kanhaya Lal, who was shown as one of the creditors of the assessee. A confession had allegedly been made by Mohan Singh Kanhaya Lal to the effect that he had only lent his name. However, there was nothing to show that the confession related to any loan advanced to the assessee or even the period during which name and not loan was lent. There was no other material at all to show that the confession made was in relation to the period 1 April, 1957 to 31 March, 1958, the subject matter of the assessment which was sought to be re-opened. It was in that situation that the Supreme Court found that the information based on the confession of the creditor, Mohan Singh Kanhaya Lal, was vague, indefinite, remote and far fetched and could not justify the formation of any belief that the income of the assessee for the period 1 April, 1957 to 31 March, 1958 had escaped assessment. However, in the instant case, as noted above, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the information furnished by the Assistant Director of inspection was definite. We, therefore, reject the contention that there was no material before the Income-tax Officer for initiating areas on able belief that the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years had escaped assessment.

15. At this stage we may also deal with another point raised on behalf of the assessee it is submitted by Mr. Aggarwal that during the course of hearing of assessee's petition under Section 256(2) of the Act, the revenue's counsel had made a statement that there were no reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer and got approved by the Commissioner as stated in the order of the Tribunal, which would show that no reasons had infact been recorded by the Income-tax Officer before initiating proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act. In our view the contention is stated to be rejected. The said statement of the revenue's counsel is not relevant for the purpose of answering the present reference because we have already recorded a finding that the Income-tax Officer did record his reasons on 16 August, 1967 before initiating the assessment proceedings. Even otherwise it is not the case of the assessee that approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax was required in respect of both the assessment years in question.

16. We accordingly endorse the view taken by the Tribunal and answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and question No. 2 in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

17. There will be no order as to costs.