JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorati to quash the impugned notices under [SECTION] of the [ACT], dt. 27th March, 1987 and 29th March, 1988, for asst. yrs, 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively and for quashing the notice under [SECTION], dt. 22nd Feb., 1990.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner is an [ENTITY] which owns residential house at Etawah and receives rental income. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the Karta of the [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY] is occupying the said premises for his individual use (office purpose) for which he pays Rs. 500 per month. It is alleged that the petitioner does not have any income from any other source.
It is alleged in para 3 of the petition that one M/s Atul Traders which is a partnership concern in Etawah, and managed by Sri [ENTITY], fraudulently and without the consent of the petitioner started an account in the books of his firm styled as [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Etawah. It is alleged in para 4 of the petition that the aforesaid amount allegedly shown deposited in the books of M/s Atul Traders has never been deposited by the petitioner but M/s Atul Traders fraudulently and with nefarious design has illegally shown the bogus deposit in the name of the petitioner on the liability side of its balance sheet.
4. Respondent No. 2 issued notice under [SECTION] for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 to the petitioner, and the petitioner in response filed returns for those assessment years, and also voluntarily filed the returns for asst. yrs, 1983-84 and 1984-85 showing annual income as Rs. 5,000 net of the petitioner from the property owned by the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an application along with an affidavit with the returns for these assessment years, and the assessment for 1981-82 to 1984-85 was completed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. True copies of the application, affidavit and assessment orders are Annex. I to VI to the writ petition.
The assessment of the petitioner's family for asst. yr. 1985-86 was also completed under [SECTION] on 6th Feb., 1986, and the return declaring net income of Rs. 5,000 was accepted by the AO (vide Annex. VII to the writ petition). 5. The assessment of M/s Atul Traders for asst, yr. 1979-80 was completed on 26th Sept., 1981, ex parte, and the alleged deposit in favour of the petitioner appearing on the liability side of the balance sheet of M/s Atul Traders was treated as bogus and the entire amount along with interest was added in the hands of the firm M/s Atul Traders, Etawah. Hence it is alleged that the respondent No. 2 had knowledge that the alleged deposit of the petitioner has been shown fraudulently by M/s Atul Traders. True copy of the assessment order for asst. yr. 1979-80 is Annex. VIII to the writ petition.
6. The name of M/s Atul Traders was changed to M/s [ENTITY]., Etawah since asst. yr. 1980-81 having the same composition, assets and liabilities. Again in the year 1981-82 in the matter of M/s [ENTITY]., respondent No. 2 treated the alleged deposit of the petitioner in the books of the firm as bogus and the interest credited to this account was added in the hands of M/s [ENTITY]. and respondent No. 2 observed that the genuineness of the deposit was doubted and the interest allowed to Sri [ENTITY], [ENTITY] is not allowed and the same is added to the total income of the firm. True copy of the assessment for asst. yr. 1981-82 of M/s [ENTITY]. is Annex. IX to the petition.
7. Respondent No. 2 issued notice under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for asst. yr. 1978-79 to the petitioner as well as to M/s Atul Traders in March, 1987. A notice under [SECTION], dt. 29th March, 1988, for asst. yr. 1979-80 was also issued to the petitioner. True copy of the notices are Annex. X and XI to the writ petition.
After issuing notices under [SECTION] to M/s Atul Traders, Etawah, respondent No. 2 has made reassessment under [SECTION]/[SECTION] and has treated the deposit of the petitioner shown by M/s Atul Traders in his account book to be bogus and has added the alleged deposit plus interest in the hands of M/s Atul Traders vide order dt. 30th March, 1989, copy of which is Annex. VII to the petition. In pursuance of notice under [SECTION] the petitioner filed return for asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80.
8. It is alleged in para 17 of the petition that while passing the assessment order under [SECTION] on 26th Sept., 1981, the fact that bogus deposit of the petitioner was shown in the books of M/s Atul Traders was well within the knowledge of the assessing authority, and the said deposit was added in the hands of M/s Atul Traders. As such this fact was well in the knowledge of the assessing authority and only after the lapse of more than six years that in the year 1987 notice under [SECTION] was issued to the petitioner.
9. It is alleged in para 18 that assessment of both the petitioner and M/s Atul Traders for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86 had been completed and the deposit in the name of petitioner in the books of M/s Atul Traders was accepted as bogus. As such the entire primary facts were well in the knowledge of respondent No. 2 while completing the assessment of the petitioner as well as of M/s Atul Traders. Hence, after the lapse of six years the notice under [SECTION] on the basis of change of opinion was invalid. Respondent No. 2 has now issued the notices under [SECTION] for the asst. yrs, 1978-79 and 1979-80 which is also challenged in this petition.
10. It is alleged in para 21 of the petition that respondent No. 2 does not have any fresh material on the record or any information which could justify the notice under [SECTION]. Hence this petition.
11. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same.
12. All that has been said in para 15 of the counter-affidavit is that in the course of examination of account books of M/s Atul Traders and M/s [ENTITY]., Etawah, the credit was found in the name of the petitioner which could not be satisfactorily explained. Since the signature of Sri [ENTITY] on the opening card of the bank account from which money was made available to the abovementioned two firms, were identified as those of Shri [ENTITY] by the signature expert, action was taken under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
13. In para 17 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that while it is true that additions have been made in the assessment order of M/s Atul Traders including unexplained credit under [SECTION], but the CIT(A), Agra, has deleted the addition on the ground that M/s [ENTITY] and M/s [ENTITY] are the source of the deposit.
Against the order of CIT(A), the Department has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Allahabad, which is pending. It is alleged that notices have rightly been issued to the petitioner.
14. From the facts of the case, it appears that the deposit entries standing in the name of the petitioner [ENTITY] in the books of account of M/s Atul Traders/[ENTITY]. had been considered in detail by the AO in the assessment proceedings and was treated to be false and bogus, and the liability claimed in respect thereof by the said firm was disallowed, and the same was added in the hands of the said firm right upto the year 1981 when assessment was made for asst. yr. 1979-80. As such the primary and necessary facts relating to the said entries were already in the knowledge of the AO on the basis of which he chose to treat the said entries as false and bogus and added the same in the hands of the firm. Hence, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that there was non-disclosure in respect of the said entries to entitle the AO to issue notices under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In this connection reference has been made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
15. It is well-settled that the responsibility of the assessee is limited to the disclosure of all primary facts and nothing beyond that vide [PRECEDENT]. Once the assessee has disclosed all the primary facts that is the end of his duty. It is then for the assessing authority to draw the proper conclusions from those facts. If the conclusions drawn by the AO from the primary facts disclosed by the assessee are erroneous, the assessing authority cannot reopen the assessment merely on the basis of a change of opinion. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
16. In [PRECEDENT] it was held that where there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return disclosing full and material particulars for assessment, notice cannot be issued under [SECTION] on mere change of opinion. Against that decision an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court vide [PRECEDENT], and the decision of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. The said decision of this Court has been followed by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in [PRECEDENT].
17. It may be mentioned that a perusal of the assessment order of M/s Atul Traders for asst. yr. 1978-79 under [SECTION] of the [ACT], copy of which is Annex. XII to the writ petition, shows that notices had been issued to Sri [ENTITY], partner of the firm M/s Atul Traders and specific queries were made by the AO. A perusal of the said order shows that Sri [ENTITY] categorically denied the existence of any amount of his [ENTITY] in the firm M/s Atul Traders or M/s [ENTITY]. in his statement recorded under [SECTION] in the course of assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1982-83. Hence, the AO held that this was a bogus entry made out of unknown sources of the income of the firm.
A similar view has been taken in the assessment of M/s [ENTITY]. for asst. yr. 1981-82 vide Annex. IX to the writ petition.
Thus, from these orders and other similar assessment orders and the other material, it is evident that the question about the entries in the name of petitioner-[ENTITY] standing in the books of the firm M/s Atul Traders or M/s [ENTITY]. have been fully investigated by the AO, and only after such investigation he has come to the opinion that these were bogus entries.
Thus, it is obvious that the impugned notice under [SECTION] has been issued only on the basis of change of opinion on the part of the AO, which is illegal.
For the reasons given above, this petition is allowed and the impugned notices are quashed. No order as to costs.