##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:33718-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5872/2001 CNR: RJHC020178602001 | URN: CW / 10505U / 2001 Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o late Shri Ved Prakash Gupta aged about 47 years, R/o 211-212, Shalimar Complex, Church Road, Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus

1. Union of India through the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-IV, Jaipur.

2. Shri R.A. Verma, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Asstt), Special Range-II, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Sahni with Ms. Neha Sahni Mr. R.M. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Shefali Sharma-UOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order(Oral)

21/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notices dated 13.07.2001 issued by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-2000, by which reassessment proceedings were initiated against him. He also seeks quashing of the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. On 16.02.2000 the respondents conducted a survey and physical verification of stock at the brick kiln of the petitioner, including bricks lying inside the kiln. By letter dated 18.02.2000 the petitioner disputed the quantity recorded during the survey. He stated that stock was maintained only in respect of fully manufactured bricks removed from the kiln after baking. Reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act followed. Show cause notices were issued on 20.06.2000 and 18.07.2000, to which the petitioner submitted detailed replies dated 13.07.2000 and 16.08.2000. A penalty notice under Section 271B dated 16.07.2001 and a notice regarding prosecution under Section 277 dated 16.04.2001 were also issued. The petitioner replied to them on 31.08.2001 and 23.04.2001 respectively.

2.1 On 13.07.2001 notices under Section 148 were issued for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-2000, requiring the petitioner to furnish returns. It is the case of the petitioner that these notices were served on 31.07.2001, when respondent No. 2 was demitting office. By replies dated 21.08.2001 the petitioner disputed the reassessment proceedings. He sought their dropping, or in the alternative the supply of the reasons recorded for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Nothing was furnished to him.

2.2 Aggrieved by the notices under Section 148 and by the non supply of the recorded reasons, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the reassessment proceedings on the grounds urged therein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the impugned notices dated 13.07.2001 are arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. They submit that, despite repeated requests, the reasons said to have been recorded under Section 148(2) before issuance of the notices were never furnished to the petitioner. They further submit that the petitioner had fully disclosed all material facts for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-2000, and that there was no tangible material, and no live nexus with the earlier assessments made under Section 143(1) (a), to justify the formation of a belief that income had escaped assessment.

3.1 They further contend that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion, particularly since the relevant material was already before the Assessing Officer. Concluded assessments could not be reopened under Section 148 in the absence of the statutory conditions and of the requisite satisfaction regarding escapement of income. According to them, the respondents have placed no material on record forming the basis of any such belief. The impugned notices and the consequential proceedings are therefore without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory scheme.

3.2 Lastly, they contend that the impugned notices were actuated by mala fides on the part of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 obtained two tru