H NORONHA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing in "B"group after notice to the respondent, is disposed of by the following order.

(2.) THE petitioner, an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is an individual. He filed his return of income for the asst. yr. 1976-77 disclosing property income of Rs. 13,153, and business loss of Rs. 21,143, before respondent No. 1, the ITO, Circle-III, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the ITO"), who accepted the return and concluded the assessment on November 30, 1977. THE order of assessment is annexed to the petition as annex. "A", the operative portion of which reads as follows :

(3.) THE above passage makes it abundantly clear that it is not enough for the concerned ITO to form a second opinion on the very same material which was before him when he concluded the assessment at a later stage, to give him jurisdiction under S. 147 of the Act. Two things more are required : One, there must be material which has come to his knowledge by way of information or otherwise subsequent to the conclusion of the assessment in question and next, also a reasonable belief that such information was deliberately withheld or suppressed by the assessee before the conclusion of the assessment. If that is not there, then the ITO cannot assume jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act bringing to tax any income that has escaped assessment.