- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Rina Sen v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, South Chotanagpur & Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner purchased four kathas of land in 1965 and obtained mutation and municipal permissions to build a house. Construction began after sanction of a building plan in 1967; an electric connection was granted in late 1968 and a second storey was constructed in December 1973. The petitioner says the total construction cost was approximately Rs. 30,000 and municipal holding tax was assessed from 1973-74. Documents supporting purchase, mutation, building plan sanction, electric connection and municipal receipts were annexed.
For assessment year 1982-83 (accounting year 1981-82), pursuant to a notice under sections 139(2) and 133, the petitioner filed a return on 27.8.82 declaring rental income from the house; that return was ultimately accepted after hearing under section 143(3). No returns were filed up to assessment year 1989-90 as the petitioner says her income remained below the taxable limit. For assessment year 1990-91 she filed a return on 31.8.90 declaring rental income of Rs. 18,300 and was assessed under section 143(1); an intimation under section 143(1)(a) was issued on 10.12.90.
After that assessment, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-III, Ranchi issued a notice dated 8.3.91 asking the petitioner to appear and furnish information in connection with assessment year 1990-91. The petitioner appeared via counsel and filed an affidavit dated 14.6.91 stating the house had been constructed between June 1967 and December 1973. The ITO then asked the Valuation Officer to inspect the property and ascertain cost and age of construction, and the Assistant Valuation Officer issued the impugned notice dated 24.1.92 requiring production of documents and proposing an inspection. The petitioner challenged the validity of that notice by filing the present writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a notice issued under section 131(1)(d) (power to issue commissions) of the Income-tax Act can lawfully be issued and acted upon by the Assessing Officer or related income-tax authorities in the absence of a proceeding pending before them.
- Whether the service of the impugned notice itself (or related notices such as the notice dated 8.3.91 under section 143(2)) can be treated as amounting to the initiation or pendency of a proceeding for the purposes of exercising power under section 131(1).
- How the statutory exception in section 131(IA) (which permits certain specified authorities to act notwithstanding that no proceeding is pending where there is reason to suspect concealment of income) affects the scope of section 131(1) powers for other authorities.
- Whether the Assessing Officer could, instead of issuing the impugned notice, have proceeded under sections 147/148 for reopening assessment, and what limits apply to preliminary inquiries before issuing such notices.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (as advanced by Mr. Binod Poddar)
- Power to issue a commission under section 131(1)(d) can be exercised only in connection with a pending proceeding; it is analogous to the Civil Court's power and cannot be exercised when no proceeding is pending.
- The Assessing Officer's power under the Income-tax Act cannot be enlarged to permit issuance of commissions absent a pending proceeding.
- Relied on authorities: Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. J.B. Panchal (162 ITR 33, Bom) and Dwijendralal Brahmchari v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (112 ITR 568, Cal) supporting the requirement of a pending proceeding.
Respondents' Arguments (as advanced in counter-affidavit and by Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala)
- The respondents disputed the petitioner's affidavit as self-serving and asserted there was nothing in department records to substantiate the petitioner's claims about construction timing and cost.
- The respondents contended it was necessary to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the cost and period of construction, because the cost had not been declared in the statement of affairs and the Department only later became aware of the property.
- Respondents maintained that by reason of the notice served on 22.3.92 (referring to the impugned notice dated 24.1.92) a proceeding was pending before the Assessing Officer and that therefore issuance of the notice under section 131(1)(d) was competent.
- Alternatively, respondents argued that the earlier notice dated 8.3.91 under section 143(2) (asking the petitioner to appear and furnish information for assessment year 1990-91) amounted to commencement and pendency of a proceeding enabling action under section 131(1).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dwijendralal Brahmchari v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd., 112 ITR 568 (Cal) | Section 131 powers are co-extensive with those of a civil court trying a suit; such powers must be exercised with application of mind and only where the orders would be relevant to the lis pending before the officer (i.e., existence of a pending proceeding and relevancy are required). | The court relied on the Calcutta High Court's exposition to hold that powers under section 131(1) are not naked or arbitrary and require a pending proceeding and satisfaction of relevancy before issuing commissions. |
| Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. J.B. Panchal, Income-tax Officer, 162 ITR 33 (Bom) | Confirmed that existence of a pending proceeding is a condition precedent and sine qua non for exercise of power under section 131(1). | The Bombay High Court's approval of Dwijendralal was cited and applied to reinforce that a pending proceeding must exist before section 131(1) powers can be exercised. |
| Prahladrai Agarwalla v. ITO, 87 ITR 655 (Cal) | Income-tax officers may investigate, but they have no power to compel the assessee to produce evidence before a notice under section 148 (reopening) has been issued; preliminary enquiries are permissible but coercion to produce documents prior to issuing a reopening notice is not. | The court used this principle to hold that an Assessing Officer cannot compel an assessee to associate in a roving or fact-finding enquiry; the officer must reach reasonable belief (as required by section 147) before requiring the assessee's participation. |
| Gaya Ram Gabbu Lal v. CIT, 19 ITR 114 (All) | Income-tax Officer has no right to make a preliminary enquiry that compels the assessee to produce books or give information before issuing a notice; however, an officer may verify information coming to his notice without compelling the assessee so long as he does not call upon the assessee to supply facts or explanations before issuing a notice. | The court cited this to emphasize limits on preliminary inquiries and to support the conclusion that no compulsory production can be demanded until the Assessing Officer has formed the requisite satisfaction to issue a notice under provisions like section 147. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by examining section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act which vests in specified income-tax authorities the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure for discovery, enforcing attendance, compelling production of documents and issuing commissions. It then analyzed the scope and limits of that power by reference to judicial authorities and statutory context.
First, the court relied on Dwijendralal (Calcutta) and Jamnadas (Bombay) to conclude that the jurisdiction under section 131(1) is not unlimited: it is conditional on the existence of a proceeding pending before the income-tax authority and requires an application of mind to relevancy — in short, the power to issue commissions is co-extensive with the civil court's powers but must be exercised only where relevant to a pending lis.
Second, the court considered the exception created by section 131(IA) (inserted by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975). That provision expressly permits the Director General/Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director or authorised officers under section 132(1) to exercise section 131(1) powers without any proceeding pending if they have reason to suspect concealment of income. The court interpreted the explicit words of subsection (IA) to mean that the statutory exception applies only to the specified higher authorities in subsection (IA) and that the ordinary authorities under section 131(1) can exercise those powers only when a proceeding is pending.
Third, the court rejected the respondents' contention that service of the impugned notice (or reference to it on 22.3.92) could be treated as the initiation of proceedings sufficient to validate the notice itself. The court reasoned that the petitioner had challenged the notice's validity; therefore service cannot be construed as creating the very jurisdiction that is in dispute. To confer jurisdiction to issue a commission, an independent proceeding must already be pending.
Fourth, the court rejected the alternative argument that the earlier notice dated 8.3.91 under section 143(2) (for assessment year 1990-91) constituted the pending proceeding required by section 131(1). The court observed that the 143(2) notice related specifically to income for assessment year 1990-91 and that the Assessing Officer, when considering income for that year, could not in the assessment under section 143(3) properly "travel back" to determine the age and cost of construction that purportedly occurred between 1967 and 1973. Moreover, the petitioner's evidence suggested the house existed prior to 1.4.1982 and that rental income had previously been declared and accepted for assessment year 1982-83, undermining the premise that the matter could be hooked to the 1990-91 assessment in a way that would make a section 131(1) commission relevant to a pending proceeding.
Fifth, the court noted that if the respondents believed reassessment was warranted, the correct course would have been to reopen assessment under section 147 read with section 148; no such notice had been issued. The court reiterated that the object of section 147 is not to authorize a roving or fishing inquiry and that the Assessing Officer cannot compel the assessee to participate in fact-finding before he reaches the stage of reasonable belief, citing Prahladrai Agarwalla and Gaya Ram Gabbu Lal to support limitations on preliminary inquiries and compulsion prior to issuing a reopening notice.
On these bases the court concluded that the petitioner had established a sound case for interference and that the impugned notice was issued without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court's final order was to quash the impugned notice. Specifically, the court ordered that the notice dated 24.1.92 contained in Annexure-10 is QUASHED and the writ petition is allowed.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The specific notice issued by the Assistant Valuation Officer requiring production of documents and proposing inspection was set aside.
- By quashing the notice, any proceedings predicated on that notice stand quashed insofar as they depend on the validity of the impugned notice.
No broader precedent was expressly claimed to be set in the opinion beyond application of existing authorities and the statutory construction that section 131(1) powers (for ordinary income-tax authorities) require a pending proceeding, while section 131(IA) expressly permits certain specified authorities to act notwithstanding the absence of a pending proceeding.
Disposition: The writ petition was allowed but without any order as to costs. Aftab Alam, J. concurred.
S.N Jha, J.:— The proposition raised for consideration on which, it is said, there is no precedent of this Court, is straight and simple enough to admit of any doubt or dispute. There may of course be dispute regarding its application in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The petitioner has been served with a notice issued in terms of section 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act (in short, ‘the Act’) in the matter of ascertainment of cost of construction of a house by the Assistant Valuation Officer, Income-tax Department at the behest of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-III, Ranchi. She seeks quashing of the notice and a declaration that the proposed investigation is illegal and without jurisdiction principally on the ground that an investigation of the kind can be made only in connection with and during pendency of a proceeding, and inasmuch as no proceeding is pendig (or can be initiated), the proposed investigation is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed. The reclevant facts are as follows.
2. The petitioner purchased four kathas of land being portion of plot no. 1175 at village Hesal (Aryapuri), Ratu Road, Ranchi for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- on 6.3.65 She got her name mutated in the revenue records of the State in Case No. 786 R 27 of 1965-1966 by the Circle Officer, Ranchi. In furtherance of the said order of mutation a correction slip was issued in her name on 4.1.66 and she was granted rent receipt. On 28.12.66 the petitioner applied for permission to build a new house before the Executive officer of the Ranchi Municipality along with a building plan. Permission was granted vide letter no. 376.B/Engineering 1966 on 15.7.67, It is said that after the sanction of the building plan the petitioner started construction of the house sometime in the year 1967 and constructed a major portion on the ground floor some time in the month of September, 1968. She thereafter applied for electric connection before the Ranchi Electric Supply Company Ltd. After due enquiry and verification an estimate was served on her on 28/31.1.68. After deposit of the requisite amount on 23.12.68, she was granted electric connection vide Consumer No. G. 3579. The petitioner in course of time constructed the second story in the month of December, 1973. The total cost of construction of the entire building, according to her, was Rs. 30,000/- approximately. She has been assessed to holding tax etc. by the Ranchi Municipality vide Holding No. 495 M2 with respect to the house since 1973-1974. The petitioner has annexed documents in support of her above-stated case regarding purchase of the land, mutation of name, sanction of building plan, grant of electric connection and municipal receipts.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by the income-tax Officer. Circle-I, Ward ‘D’, Ranchi dated 3.6.82 under sections 139(2) and 133 of the Act, the petitioner filed return of income for assessment year 1982-1983 relevant to the accounting year 1981-1982 on 27.8.82 showing her total income at Rs. 5714/- in which she showed rental income from the said house apart from other income. According to the petitioner, her income never exceeded the exemption limit allowed under the Act and, therefore, there was no occasion for her to file any return of income or to show the rental income from that house.
4. The above said return filed on 27.8.82 was finally accepted after hearing under section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner's case of receiving rental income from the said house property was thus accepted without any objection. She did not file return of her income thereafter upto the assessment year 1989-1990 as her income, according to her, remained below the taxable limit. For the assessment year 1990-1991, however, when her total income exceeded the taxable limit she filed the return on 31.8.90 showing total income at Rs. 18,300/- as rental income from the said house. She was assessed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and an intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued to her by Income-tax Officer, Ward-III, Ranchi on 10.12.90 However, after completing the assessment in the aforesaid manner, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-III, Ranchi issued notice on 8.3.91 asking the petitioner to appear before him in order to furnish certain information as may be required by him in connection with the same very assessment year i.e 1990-1991. The petitioner in compliance of the said notice appeared before the Income-tax Officer through her advocate who was asked to give details of the house. The petitioner filed affidavit on 14.6.91 stating therein that the house had been constructed and investments made in the construction between June, 1967 and December, 1973. Thereafter, it is said, the ITO asked the Valuation officer, Income-tax Department, Ranchi vide his letter dated 22.1.92 to inspect the property and make investigation as may be considered necessary to determine the true and correct cost of construction of the house property and to submit valuation report. The impugned notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Valuation Officer, income-tax Department, Ranchi on 24.1.92 requiring her to produce certain documents, as mentioned in the notice, on 7.2.92, informing her further that he would like to inspect the property on 11.2.92 The petitioner at this stage filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the said notice dated 24.1.92 as indicated at the outset.
5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. They have rejected the affidavit dated 14.6.91 (supra) describing it as self-serving document and claimed that there is nothing in the records of the Income-tax Department to substantiate the facts alleged by the petitioner. According to the respondents, in order to determine the correctness of the petitioner's case regarding the construction of the house and ascertain the cost of construction involved it is necessary to get an investigation made by the Valuation officer who possesses the necessary expertise. It is said that in the statement of affairs filed by the petitioner along with her return she did not declare the cost of construction and when the Department came to know about property it was considered necessary to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for ascertainment of the cost of construction as well as the period of construction of the house in question. As regards the case of the petitioner that no proceeding was pending in connection with which the notice had been issued and investigation was sought to be made, the respondents have stated “in view of the notice served on the assessee on 22.3.92 the proceeding was pending before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Assessment Officer was competent to issue notice under section 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”
6. The aforesaid notice said to have been served on the petitioner on 22.3.92, it may be mentioned, refers to the same very notice which has been issued by the Assistant Valuation Officer in the matter of ascertainment of the cost of construction etc. of the house and is under challenge in this writ petition.
7. Mr. Binod Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer and/or the Appellate Officers have power to issue commission under section 131(1)(d) of the Act but the power can be exercised only in connection with a pending proceeding. The power, it was submitted, is the same as that of Civil Court under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and since the Civil Court has power to issue commission and/or to pass other orders referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 131(1) of the Act while trying a suit, as said so in the section itself. The power of the Assessing Officer etc. under the Income-tax Act cannot be enlarged and be exercised even though no proceeding is pending under the Act. Counsel relied on the Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. J.B Panchal, Income-tax Officer, 162 ITR 33 (Bom) and Dwijendralal Brahmchari v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd., 112 ITR 568 (Cal).
8. Mr. K.K Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel for the respondents, did not, very fairly, dispute the proposition that commission can be issued under section 131(1)(d) of the Act only in connection with a pending proceeding he, however, reiterated the stand of the respondents that by reason of the issuance of the notice, a proceeding within the meaning of section 131 would be deemed to have commenced. Alternatively, he argued that the notice dated 9.3.91 (supra), issued in terms of section 143(2) of the Act asking the petitioner to appear and furnish information as may be required of her in connection with the assessment year 1990-1991 would amount to commencement and pendency of proceeding.
9. Before considering the submission of the counsel for the parties it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of section 131(1) as follows:—
“131. Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc.—(1) The Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and Chief Commissioner shall, for the purpose of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (3 of 1908), when trying a is it in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(a) discovery and inspection;
(b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath;
(c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and
(d) issuing commissions.”
10. In Dwijendralal Brahmchari v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) the Calcutta High Court explained the scope of the provisions of Section 131 in these words:—
“From a perusal of section 131 of the Income-tax Act, we are of the opinion, that the power of the Income-tax Officer under that section is co-extensive with that of a court trying a suit under section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with rules 12.14 and 15 or Order 11 of the Code. Section 131 empowers the officers mentioned in the section to act for the purpose of the Act, but that cannot be the only limitation set out under section 131 imposed upon the powers of the officers mentioned in the said section to act in the terms of the said section. All statutory bodies must act for the purposes of the statute even though the terms ‘for the purposes of the Act’ be not expressly stated. Secondly, it appears to us that the statutory power cannot be exercised without application of mind as urged by Mr. R.C Deb appearing on behalf of the respondent. If such powers are granted, then such powers would be so naked that the section itself would become ultravires. Application of mind must be in regard to the question of relevancy of the documents to the lis involved in the matter before the Income-tax Officer. A civil court cannot order discovery, production or inspection of documents until it is of the opinion that such documents are relevant for the purpose of the issues involved in the suit pending before it. Similarly, it seems to us that the officers mentioned in section 131 of the Income-tax Act have been vested with the powers to make the orders as mentioned therein provided they are satisfied that the orders made would be relevant for the purposes of deciding the case pending before them. If we hold otherwise, we would be holding that section 131(1) has conferred naked and arbitrary powers upon such officers which would make the section itself liable to be struck down.”
11. The above observations of the Calcutta High Court were quoted with approval by the Bombay High Court in Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. J.S Panchal, ITO (supra) and it was held that the existence of a pending proceeding was a condition precedent and sine qua non for the exercise of power under section 131(1).
12. Reference to the provisions of sub-section (IA) of section 131, which was inserted by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975, would make the intention of the legislature clear. Sub-section (IA) reads as follows:—
“(IA) If the Director General or Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director, or the authorised officer referred to in sub-section (1) of section 132 before he takes action under clauses (i) to (v) of that sub-section has reason to suspect that any income has been concealed, or is likely to be concealed, by any person or class of persons, within his jurisdiction, then, for the purposes of making any enquiry or investigation relating thereto, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) on the income-tax authorities referred to in that sub-section, notwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before him or any other income-tax authority.”
13. The words “notwithstanding that no proceeding with respect to such person or class of persons are pending” occurring in sub-section (IA) of section 131 leave no room for doubt that while the authorities specified under section 131(IA) of the Act are empowered to take action if there is “reason to suspect” that any income has been concealed or is likely to be concealed by any person or class of persons even though no proceeding with respect to such person or class of persons is pending before him or any other income-tax authority, the authority specified in section 131(2) of the Act can do so only if a proceeding is pending before them.
14. The submission of Mr. Jhunjhunwala that the service of the impugned notice on 22.3.92 would be deemed to be initiation of proceeding is completaly misconceived. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the same very notice and its service cannot therefore be interpreted as amounting to initiation of any proceeding. In order to confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer etc. to issue commission, that is to say, make reference to the Valuation officer to ascertain the cost and age of construction of the house, a proceeding must be pending from before. It is plain that if the impugned notice is struck down, the so-called proceedings would automatically stand quahsed. The proceedings within the meaning of section 131(1) of the Act must therefore be an independent proceedings pending from before and it is only in connection with that proceeding in which commission can be issued.
15. The other submission of Mr. Jhunjhunwala that proceeding should be deemed to be pending with the issuance of the notice dated 8.3.91 under section 143(2) of the Act is equally misconceived. From bare perusal of the said notice, copy whereof has been marked Annexure-7 to the writ petition, it is clear that it has been issued in connection with assessment year 1990-1991. In other words, pursuant to the said notice the Assessing Officer is entitled to require the petitioner to furnish such information as may be necessary in connection with ascertainment of income during the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1990-1991. However, it is the definite case of the petitioner that the house in question was constructed during the period from 1967 to 1973. While considering the question of ascertainment of income during the period relevant to the assessment year 1990-1991 under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot travel back to the alleged period of construction. I must observe that the petitioner has produced evidence which strongly suggests that after purchase of the land in 1965, she constructed portion of the house at least prior to December, 1968 when she was granted electric connection vide Consumer No. G-3579 and completed the construction prior to 1974 when the Ranchi Municipality started collection holding tax etc. with respect to the house. It is to be kept in mind that in her return filed for the assessment year 1982-1983, the petitioner had declared rental income, allegedly from the said house, at Rs. 5,714/- which after the enquiry her return was accepted by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(3) of the Act. This also shows, prima facie, that the house was in existence prior to 1.4.82
16. If the respondents so thought it was open to them to reopen the assessment taking recourse to the provisions of section 148 read with section 147 of the Act. Neither any such notice has been issued nor it is possible to interpret the action of the respondents as amounting to pendency of any proceeding under section 147 of the Act on the basis of materials on record. Section 147 as it stood at the relevant time empowered the Assessing Officer, if he had reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or to disclose fully or truly, all material facts necessary for assessment for the particular year, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the year, or notwithstanding that there had been no such omission or failure, he was in possession of some information leading him to believe that income chargeable to tax and escaped assessment for an assessment year, to assess or re-assess such income subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153 of the Act. I have grave doubts if, in view of the provisions of section 149 of the Act, this can now be done or could be done even in January/March, 1992 when the impugned notice was issued and served. It is well settled that the object of section 147 of the Act is not to make a roving or fishing enquiry. While it is open to the authority in an appropriate case to make an enquiry—confidential or otherwise—in order to obtain information or verify facts disclosed to him by the asses-see or coming to his notice, before reaching the stage of reasonable belief, he cannot compel the assessee to associate himself in such roving or fact-finding enquiry. The assessee can be required to appear only after the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion as to reasonable belief within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. In this connection, I would like to refer to the following observations of the Calcutta High Court in Prahladrai Agarwalla v. ITO, 87 ITR 655:—
“The correct position seems to me that the Income-tax Officers in particular cases have the right and indeed the duty to investigate. Such investigations might be done from all sources including the assessee. He cannot, however, in my opinion, compel the assessee to produce any evidence before a notice under section 148 has been issued. The notice of 25th May, 1967, has to be judged in that light. I am of the opinion that there is no power on the part of the Income-tax Officer to compel the assessee to produce the particulars or to ask him to show cause why the assessment should not be reopened.”
17. Earlier, in Gaya Ram Gabbu Lal v. CIT, 19 ITR 114, the Allahabad High Court had observed,
“The Income-tax Officer has no right to make a preliminary enquiry before issuing notice under section 34 and the assessee is not bound at that stage either to produce his books or to give any information or explanation. But, if in the course of the performance of his usual duties, while assessing the income of other assessees or for other years of the assessee himself, definite facts come to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer, which relates to a year about which the assessment has already been concluded, the Income-tax Officer is not bound to shut his eyes to them nor is it necessary that when the Income-tax Officer gets some information, he should not verify the correctness thereof or trace it out further so long as he can do it without calling upon the assessee either to supply him with facts or explanations or produce his books. Within those limits he may inform himself. Before notice can be issued, the Income-tax Officer must be satisfied and the satisfaction must be that of a reasonable man, (i.e the definite information in his possession should lead to the conclusion) that income has escaped assessment.”
18. In the above premises, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference by this Court and the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.
19. In the result, the notice dated 24.1.92 contained in Annexure-10 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed but without any order as to cost.
20. Aftab Alam, J.:— I agree.
Alert