The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'reason to believe' for reopening assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act must be based on specific and relevant material related to the particular assessment year, and must be rational, reasonable, and in good faith.

( 1 ) BY means of the present revision, following reliefs has been claimed.

a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the slow cause notice dated 26. 7. 1999 issued by the respondent (Annexure No. IX ). a-1) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 24. 12. 1998 received on 11. 1. 1999 issued by the respondent (Annexure No. 1 ).

b) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Honble court deems fit and proper. c) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case-giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is a company carrying on the business of construction of building in the city of Agra. The Company was incorporated on 31st January, 1994. For the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner filed its return regarding the construction of the building showing the loss of Rs. 2,77,400/ -. The assessment was completed under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The respondent issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 24. 12. 1998 to reopen the case for the assessment year 1995-96. On the request of the petitioner, on 267 1999. reason for issue of the notice and reopening of the case has been supplied which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, which reads as follows:

"during the course of assessment proceedings for the A. Y. 96-97 the books of account of assessee were rejected Under Section 145 (2) for the detailed reasons given in the order passed Under Section 143 (3) dated 18. 12. 98 it was found that: 1. That the assessee is not maintaining the stock register even for the major items such as steel, cement, bricks etc. 2. Work in progress register has also not been maintained form which expenditure incurred on the project can be verified.

( 3 ) NO details of day-to-day consumption of material is maintained. And net income was estimated 10% of the gross receipts during the course of assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee has also not maintained the details/information has also not mentioned above at (1), (2) and (3) for the assessment year 1995-96 also and the loss has been shown at Rs. 2,77,400/ -. The receipts under the hand "deposit from customers" have been shown at Rs. 46, 77,190. 35. Therefore, net profit (a) 10% works out to Rs. 4,67,719/- as against loss of Rs. 2,77,400/ -. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 7,45,119/- (4, 67, 719 + 2,77,400) has escaped assessment as per provisions of Section 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961. Issue notice Under Section 148. " 3. Heard Sri S. O. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Krishna, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 147 of the Act, case can be reopened only when there is material of escaped income. He submitted that the reason recorded by the respondent for the reopening of the case shows that there was no material of any escaped income for the year under consideration. He submitted that only material referred is that the defects were found in the books of account for the assessment year 1996-97 and the estimate of the income by way of best judgment assessment, but no material has been referred relating to the year under consideration on the basis of which a believe could be formed about the escaped income. He submitted that unless there is specific material for the year under consideration that any income has been escaped, proceeding under Section 147 of the Act cannot be taken.

( 5 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that during the course of the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1996-97, it was found that the petitioner has not maintained the proper books of account and it was also found that the proper books of account has not been maintained for the year under consideration