SHUMANA SEN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the reassessment proceedings in this writ petition, commenced under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issue of a notice under that section on 28.3.2012. A prayer is also made for quashing of all consequent proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service of the 1987 batch. She is assessed to income tax. In respect of the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer, who is the respondent No.3 in the writ petition, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 28.3.2012 on the ground that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2005-06 has escaped assessment and called upon the petitioner to deliver the return of income. Pursuant thereto the petitioner would appear to have filed the return of income and on 2.4.2012 sought reasons from the Assessing Officer for the issuance of the impugned notice of reassessment. The reasons were not provided and therefore on 24.4.2012 another request was made in writing to furnish the reasons. On 30.4.2012, the respondent No.3 provided the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) to the petitioner and on the same day also issued a notice under Section 142(1) seeking information in connection with the petitioner's assessment. On receipt of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the petitioner filed her objections on 4.5.2012 questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent No.3 to reopen the assessment. It also appears that the petitioner challenged the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the notice was issued at the behest of respondent No.4 who, according to the petitioner, bore enmity towards the petitioner on account of certain matters arising out of their career with the IRS. Till the date of filing the writ petition, the objections have not been disposed of by the respondent No.3 and hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The main grievance projected on behalf of the petitioner, as stated earlier, is that the assessment was reopened at the behest of respondent No.4 who bore ill will and enmity towards the petitioner on account of certain developments which had allegedly taken place in their career in the IRS and that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind to the allegations made in the "tax evasion petition" filed by respondent No.4 with the Assessing Officer. It is contended that respondent No.4, who is also a senior IRS officer, was in a position to influence the Assessing Officer and also the Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction over the petitioner's assessment and that the assessment was reopened on the basis of wild and baseless allegations made in the tax evasion petition. Our attention was drawn to several pages of correspondence and other documents as well as to proceedings in courts in an attempt to show that the respondent No.4 bore a grudge against the petitioner, as a result of which he was using his position in the IRS to harass and embarrass the petitioner. It is therefore, contended that the reassessment proceedings commenced by the issue of notice dated 28.3.2012 under Section 148 are malafide and certainly without jurisdiction. These contentions are stoutly resisted by the ld. standing counsel on behalf of the income tax department. He has produced the relevant official record in support of his contention that the reasons recorded do make out a prima facie case of escapement of income and therefore, the notice cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. He further contends that at this stage, the focus should not be as to whether the reassessment proceedings were commenced with any malafide or oblique motive and that the pertinent issue to be examined would only be whether there was "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. He contends that the Assessing Officer had "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as would be evident from the recorded reasons.