K M BANSAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises in this batch of six writ petitions. They can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order. The question is :

(2.) The assessee was a partner in three partnership firms during the "previous year" relevant to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88. The petitioner states that he had no income other than the share income from the said partnerships. He filed returns and assessments were completed according to law. On August 10, 1988, a search was conducted at the business premises of the said three partnership firms under Section 132 of the Act. The residential premises of the partners, including the petitioner, were also searched and certain documents were seized. Summary assessments were made under Sub-section (5) of Section 132 holding that the partnerships concealed substantial income. Against the said orders, the petitioner says, representations were filed under Sub-section (11) of Section 132, which are pending now. While so, the second respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle 2(1), Agra, issued notices under Section 148 for the assessment year 1983-84 on March 23, 1989, and for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88 on March 9, 1989. In response to these notices, the petitioner filed returns under protest with respect to all the assessment years. Along with the returns, he submitted a letter of request to the second respondent to supply him a copy of the "reasons" recorded for initiating the said reassessment proceedings. He relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in New Bank of India Ltd. v. ITO [1982] 136 ITR 679 in support of his right to be supplied with the reason. The second respondent, however, did not supply a copy of the reasons. It is then that the petitioner approached this court with the present writ petition, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notices issued under Section 148 and also for a further direction to the respondents to communicate the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the assessments have been reopened without forming the requisite satisfaction/belief and under a mere suspicion. It is alleged that the assessments have been reopened with a view to make a fishing and roving inquiry and that, in fact, there was no material in the possession of the Department which could have led them to believe that any income has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner's further case is that, if at all, the only basis for reopening the assessments could be the material gathered during the search and the order made under Sub-section (5) of Section 132. But, says the petitioner, the said order is only a summary assessment and, in any event a representation against the same is pending under Section 132 (11) and, until that is disposed of, the order made under Section 132(5) or the material contained therein cannot constitute relevant material for reopening the assessments.