Judgement

B. P. JEEVAN REEDY, J.:- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1562 OF 1977:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing the writ appeal preferred by the Revenue [Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-VI and others] against the judgment of a learned single Judge. The learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee questioning the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act.

2. In the return filed for the Assessment Year 1959-60, the assessee had shown certain hundi loans totalling Rs.8,53,298/- said to have been taken from a number of persons. The Income Tax Officer accepted the averment and made the assessment. During the assessment proceedings for the succeeding year, 1960-61, the assessee again showed hundi loans in a sum of more than Rupees seventeen lakhs. The Income Tax Officer enquired into the truth of the averment and found that many of them were bogus claims while some of the alleged lenders were found to be near relations of directors or principal shareholders of the assessee. The Income Tax Officer held that out of the hundi loans of more than Rupees seventeen lakhs claimed by the assessee, loans totalling Rs.11,15,275/- were not established to be genuine loans and accordingly added that amount as income from undisclosed sources. Having regard to the similarity of the claims and the persons who are said to have advanced the said unsecured hundi loans during the accounting year relevant to the Assessment Year 1959-60, the Income tax Officer issued a notice under Section 148 calling upon the assessee to file a revised return for the Assessment Year 1959-60. Immediately, upon receiving the said notice, the assessee approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition questioning the validity of the notice on the grounds that the Income Tax Officer had no reasonable ground to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the said year on account of any omission or failure on his part to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge, as stated above, whose decision has been reversed in appeal by the Division Bench. This Court entertained the Special Leave Petition filed by the assessee and granted leave on July 26, 1977. This Court, however, did not stay the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. It directed that the Income Tax Officer may proceed to complete the assessment proceedings but will not issue a demand notice. The Income Tax Officer has accordingly completed the re-assessment.

3. Sections 147, 148 and 151, as they stood at the relevant time, read as follows:

"147. Income escaping assessment.- If (a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part, of an assessee to make a return under Section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or

(b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of an assessee, the Income-tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153, assess or re-assess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).

he may, subject to the provisions o sections 148 to 153, assess or re-assess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant a