JUDGMENT :

K.R. Shriram, J.

1. Petitioner is an individual who had filed on 23rd July 2014 his original Return of income (ROI) tax for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.1,89,69,048/-. Subsequently, on 23rd July 2015, petitioner filed revised ROI at Rs.2,54,08,853/-. The ROI was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act).

2. Subsequently, petitioner received a notice dated 31st March 2021 under Section 148 of the Act stating that the respondent no.2 has reasons to believe that petitioner’s income for A.Y. 2014-15 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Petitioner was later provided a copy of the approval under Section 151 of the Act alongwith reasons recorded for such belief.

3. Petitioner filed its objections and the objections came to be rejected by an order dated 21st January 2022. The notice dated 31st March 2021 and the order dated 21st January 2022 are impugned in this petition.

4. Mr. Pardiwalla submitted that even though the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued more than four years after the expiry of the relevant assessment year, the assessment not having been completed under Section 143(3), the proviso to Section 147 may not apply. That would still not absolve responsibility of respondents that the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rationale connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Mr. Pardiwalla submitted that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income Tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has been an escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year. Mr. Pardiwalla submitted that the reasons recorded not only fails to make out a demonstrable link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief but it also exposes total non-application of mind by the respondent no.2 and also by the authorities who have granted the approval under Section 151 of the Act.

5. Mr. Sharma submitted that the link between the tangible material and the formation of belief has been explained in the impugned order dated 21st January 2022 and if there was any error in the reasons recorded, those are, as stated in the Affidavit-in-Reply, typographical errors.

6. We have considered the petition with the documents annexed thereto and the Affidavit-in-Reply with the assistance of Mr. Pardiwalla and Mr. Sharma.

7. In the reasons recorded, a copy whereof is at Exhibit B to the petition, the proposed re-opening is set out to be for A.Y.2014-15. The information based on which respondent no.2 has formed an opinion that there is reason to believe escapement of income, in the reasons it is stated, relates to A.Y. 2015-16. In the conclusion given in the reasons recorded for re-opening, respondent no.2 states “……...I have reason to believe that the amount exceeding Rs. One Lakh chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.…….”. Therefore, respondent no.2 himself is not clear for which year or based on information for which year that he proposed to re-open, as he had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the Affidavit-in-Reply respondent no.2 casually states that it was a typographical error. In our view, respondent no.2 owed an obligation to explain as to how a typographical error crept in, in more than one place and before affixing his signature did he read the reasons that he had recorded. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the casual excuse of typographical error.

8. Moreover, if only the Additional Commissioner, who has recommended the proposal of respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 or respondent no.3 himself, while expressing satisfaction that the case was fit for issue of notice under Section 148, had bothered to read the reasons recorded, certainly they would have found the errors and they would have