JUDGMENT
[ENTITY] J.
1. In this writ petition the validity of the proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short "the Act"), initiated vide notice under [SECTION], dated October 22, 1996, has been challenged. Before resolving the controversy it is necessary to advert to the relevant facts. The petitioner is a partner in B. K. Jagan and Co., Chandigarh, and, as such, is regularly assessed to income-tax. He had duly furnished his return for the assessment year 1994-95 and the assessment on the same had been completed on December 1, 1995, at a total income of Rs. 36,000. The petitioner had solemnized the marriage of his daughter during the financial year 1993-94 relevant to the assessment year 1994-95. Unfortunately, the marriage was unsuccessful and the petitioner's daughter filed a petition for divorce. In the divorce proceedings before the District judge, she furnished an affidavit wherein she had stated that her father, i.e., the petitioner, had spent between seven to eight lakhs rupees on her marriage. When this affidavit came to the notice of the Assessing Officer, he referred to the income-tax records of the petitioner and found that the amount stated to have been spent on the marriage was not reflected in the withdrawals made by him. He, therefore, inferred that the expenditure, had been incurred by the petitioner out of his income from undisclosed sources which had escaped assessment. Accordingly, he initiated proceedings under [SECTION] of the Act vide the impugned notice under [SECTION] of the Act on October 22, 1996. This notice is claimed to have been served on the petitioner on November 2, 1996.
2. Sh. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the proceedings under [SECTION] of the Act had been wrongly initiated and are without jurisdiction. He stated that there was a typographical error in the affidavit filed by the petitioner's daughter during the divorce proceedings inasmuch as the figure of Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs had been inadvertently typed against the correct figure of Rs. 70 to 80 thousand. He pleaded that on noticing the mistake, the petitioner's daughter had duly applied for amendment to that effect before the District judge on October 24, 1996, which was permitted by him. It was specially highlighted that the said amendment had been carried out before the notice under [SECTION] had been served on the petitioner on November 2, 1996. Thus, according to learned counsel the very basis for the initiation of proceedings under [SECTION] being wrong, the same deserved to be quashed.
3. It is a well-settled position that normally the parties should approach the authorities under the statute for settlement of disputes as the High Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT], is not expected to act as an appellate authority or a revisional authority. The validity of proceedings under [SECTION] can well be examined by the appellate authorities provided under the Act. However, it is also equally well settled that the assessing authority cannot assume jurisdiction to re-open an assessment wrongly unless the conditions for reopening are satisfied. The assessee can move this court and challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under [SECTION] for want of jurisdiction. In such a situation, the question of pursuing the alternative remedy does not arise at all. In the present case also, the challenge to the notice under [SECTION] is on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. We, therefore, have to examine the question to a limited extent as to whether or not the Assessing Officer could have the requisite reason to believe about the escapement of income. This issue had come up for the consideration of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. It was held that a prima facie satisfaction based on some material could vest the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under [SECTION]. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court at page 201 may be reproduced as under :
"The position, therefore, is that if there were in fact some reasonable grounds for thinking that there had been any non-disclosure as regards any primary fact, which could have a material bearing on the question of 'underassessment', that would be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer to issue the notices under [SECTION]. Whether these grounds were adequate or not for arriving at the conclusion that there was a non-disclosure of material facts would not be open for the court's investigation. In other words, all that is necessary to give this special jurisdiction is that the Income-tax Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there had been some non-disclosure of material facts."
4. Similar observations were made by the apex court in [PRECEDENT]. The relevant observations at page 445 are repoduced below :
"Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate. The sufficiency of the grounds which induce the Income-tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course open to the assessee to contend that the Income-tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief. The expression 'reason to believe' does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law."
5. Applying the aforesaid tests to the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that the affidavit of the daughter of the petitioner formed a reasonable ground for the Assessing Officer to entertain a prima facie reason to believe about the escapement of income. It cannot, therefore, be held that the proceedings had been initiated without jurisdiction. We may, however, clarify that we have merely examined the validity of the proceedings at the initiation stage only and have not gone into the merits of the case of the assessee. The assessee would be free to lead evidence in the reassessment proceeding to show that the expenditure incurred by him on the marriage of his daughter was not Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs but was Rs. 70 to 80 thousand as alleged by him and, therefore, no income had escaped assessment.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.