JUDGMENT

Civil Appeals Nos. 3041-43 of 1983

These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated November 29, 1979, whereby the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents have been allowed and the notices issued under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) have been quashed.

2. C.A. No. 3041 of 1983 arises out of Writ Petition No. 1177 of 1974 filed by Purushottam Das Bangur, respondent No. 1. It relates to the assessment of the said respondent for the assessment year 1969-70. During the accounting year relevant to the said assessment year the assessee claimed that he had suffered long term capital loss on sale of shares of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. during the period March 5, 1969 and March 30, 1969 at the price quoted in the Official Report and quotations of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association. According to the assessee, he had incurred a loss of Rs. 1,57,792/-. The said claim of the assessee was accepted by the Income Tax Officer, C Ward, Jodhpur while making the assessment and the same was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer received a letter dated March 21, 1974 from Shri S.M. Bagai, Deputy Director, Directorate of Inspector (Investigation), Special Cell, New Delhi, wherein it was stated that on information obtained from the Bombay Stock Exchange Directory the book value per equity share of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. rose from Rs. 318.55 for the year ending December 21, 1965 to Rs. 401/- for the year ending December 31, 1970 and the earning per share rose from Rs. 8.37 per share during the abovementioned period and that the dividend percentage also rose from 2% to 10% for the same period, but the quotations of the shares in Calcutta Stock Exchange fell from Rs. 168/- to Rs. 85/- per share during this period. In the said letter of Shri Bagai it was stated that it was clear from these facts that the quotations appearing are as a result of certain manipulated transactions between the group and in cannot be said that to reflect the fair market value of the company. Alongwith the said letter Shri Bagai had annexed the information which was gathered by him on the basis of the Bombay Stock Exchange Directory and other information. The said letter of Shri Bagai was received by the Income Tax Officer on March 26, 1974. On March 27, 1974, he issued a notice under Section 147(b) of the Act whereby the assessee was informed that the Income Tax Officer had the reason to believe that assessee s income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1969-70 had escaped assessment and, therefore, the assessing authority proposed to reassess the income for the said assessment year and the assessee was required to deliver to him a return in the prescribed form of his income for the said year. Feeling aggrieved by the said notice, the assessee filed Writ Petition No. 1177 of 1974 in the Rajasthan High Court.

3. Similar notices under Section 147(b) of the Act were issued to respondent No. 2, Rang Lal Bangur, in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 and 1971-72 which were challenged by him by filing Writ Petitions Nos. 1182 of 1974 and 57 of 1975 before the Rajasthan High Court.

4. All the three Writ Petitions have been decided by the High Court by a common judgment dated October 26, 1979 whereby the High Court has held that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the Income Tax Officer had in his possession information in consequence of which he could have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment years. The said decision of the High Court has been assailed by the Income Tax Officer by filing these appeals.

5. Section 147(b) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided as follows :-

"147. If-

(a) (Omitted)

(b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as men