The reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons, and re-opening of an assessment must be based on the Assessing Officer's own satisfaction.

ORDER

Rekha Borana, J. - The present petition has been filed aggrieved of the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act of 1961') seeking to reopen assessment and the order of dismissal of the objections against the same.

2. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition as under:

3. The petitioner was in receipt of summons dated 20.01.2017 issued under Section 131(1A) of the Act of 1961 requiring him to furnish information and documents concerning nature of his business, source of income and books of accounts including bank statements. The said summons was followed by further summons dated 14.02.2017, 26.05.2017, 09.11.2017 and 27.11.2017. A reply to the said summons was ultimately filed by the petitioner on 20.02.2018 whereby, the documents and the information as called for were submitted. But after a period of 3 years of the reply being furnished by the petitioner, he was served with the notice dated 30.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 seeking to reopen assessment on the grounds that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2013-14 has escaped assessment. Vide the said notice, the income-tax return in the prescribed format for the assessment year 2013-14 was called for from the petitioner.

4. Before submitting the detailed reply to the said notice, the petitioner, vide communication dated 19.05.2021, requested to supply the reasons for the decision to reopen the assessment. In response thereof, vide communication dated 28.06.2021, the reasons as requested for by the petitioner were supplied to him. After receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted objections in detail against the same on 19.08.2021 but the said objections of the petitioner were dismissed by the Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Pali - Marwar (respondent No.5) vide his order dated 01.09.2021. Further vide notice dated 08.12.2021, the petitioner was called upon to supply the details of certain documents/grounds pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14.

5. Aggrieved against the notice dated 30.03.2021 (under Section 148 of the Act of 1961) and order dated 01.09.2021, whereby, the objections of the petitioner were dismissed, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. The petitioner has in his petition raised the ground that the respondent No.5 did not apply his own independent mind but proceeded only on the basis of the report and observations of DDIT (Inv.)-I, Jodhpur. He submitted that the order dated 01.09.2021 is nothing more than the conclusions, one by one, as observed by DDIT (Inv.)-I, Jodhpur. It is the submission of the counsel that the proceedings for reassessment cannot be opened without arriving at individual satisfaction of the Officer. Whereas in the present matter, it is just a 'borrowed satisfaction'. It is the submission that the reasons as narrated in the order dated 01.09.2021 failed to demonstrate any link between the tangible material and the affirmation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Counsel argued that the order passed by the respondent No.5 was merely an order reiterating the observations of DDIT (Inv.)-I, Jodhpur with cloak of justification under the garb of 'his reasons to believe'.

7. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that even the order according sanction by respondent No.4 is merely a rubber stamp order with no application of mind. He argued that the report of respondent No.4 simply mentions 'I am satisfied', which itself is sufficient to prove that there was no application of mind by respondent No.4 also while according sanction.

8. Counsel further tried to portray that sufficient and reasonable explanation of the withdrawals of cash was furnished by him and it was specifically submitted on his behalf that the withdrawals were meant to pay the agriculturalists from whom purchases were affected by the petitioner and that the credits were against the sales of agricultural produce. Counsel relied upon Rule 6DD of the Income-ta