PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application, inter alia, challenging the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90.

( 2 ) THE application was moved before this court on September 26, 1994, when her Lordship Ruma Pal J. , was pleased to direct that the Income-tax Officer will be at liberty to proceed with the hearing of the notice under Section 148 of the said Act and pass a final order but the same shall not be given effect to or communicated to the petitioner till January 15, 1995, or until further orders of this court whichever is earlier.

( 3 ) THE directions for affidavits were also given and the affidavits have been filed and the matter has come before this court for final hearing.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case briefly are as follows : the respondents issued five notices all dated July 29, 1994, under Section 148 of the said Act for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the said Act for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90. The petitioner is carrying on its business of commissioning of plant for treatment of industrial wastage, effluents and for softening of water. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was assessed for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90 under Section 143 (1) (a) and also under Section 143 (3) of the said Act. The petitioner was treated by the respondents as an "industrial company", The Income-tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the ITO"), who had the jurisdiction over the petitioner-company being satisfied allowed the deduction under Section 80hh of the said Act up to the assessment year 1987-88. The claim for deductions made under Section 80hh, under Section 32ab, under Section 80hhc were also allowed for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The appeals were preferred and finally the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and appeals for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were preferred firstly, but since the deductions under sections 80hh and 32ab of the said Act were allowed, no appeal was preferred. The case of the petitioner that there was no omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for claiming deduction and all primary facts relating to the drawing legal inference by the Income-tax Officer, were before him. Accordingly, it is submitted that all proceedings for reopening the assessments are illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction.

( 5 ) DR. Pal appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relied upon a judgment reported in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO , and contended that the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, did not exist. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under Section 34 in respect of the assessment years after the expiry of four years. He also relied upon another judgment reported in Indra Co. Ltd. v. ITO, and contended that there was no failure to disclose any material facts for the purpose of the assessment, so far as the loss arising from the bonus shares was concerned, Section 147 (a) could not be invoked and the notice must be struck down.

( 6 ) HIS further contention that mere change of opinion cannot be a valid ground for reopening an assessment under Section 34 (l) (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In support of such submission he relied upon a judgment reported in CIT v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah. He further relied upon another judgment reported in ITO v. British Paints India Ltd. and contended that all the primary facts for the purpose of the assessment were disclosed by the assessee and on those facts the Income-tax Officer who made the assessment was satisfied that the method of valuation adopted by the assessee was the correct method. Subsequently, a different view cannot be taken i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document