bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1012 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1012 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1012 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. Prabha V.Kariwala ..Respondent Mrs.Anuradha Mane for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondent, though served. By the above Appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s.147 of the Act and subsequent issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act in assessee’s case is bad in law? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.20,61,400/- made on account of bogus gift? 2. We have perused the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31st October, 2007. The Tribunal, in fact has quoted verbatim what was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order in paragraph No.3 and has clearly came to the finding that the Assessing Officer has recorded no :2: reasons at all to come to a conclusion that the Assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and merely on the basis of suspicion, the Assessment appears to have been reopened. 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant strongly relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another Vs. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another Vs. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another Vs. Income Income Income Tax Officer and Another 203 ITR 456 Tax Officer and Another 203 ITR 456 Tax Officer and Another 203 ITR 456, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: From the plain phraseology of the above sections of the Act, it appears that two conditions precedent which are required to be satisfied before an Income Tax Officer can acquire jurisdiction to proceed under clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the Act, beyond the period of four years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, are : (a) that the Income Tax Officer must have reason to believe that the income, profits or gains chargeable to tax had either been underassessed or had escaped assessment and (b) that the Income Tax Officer must have reason to believe that such escapement or underassessment was occasioned by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Both these conditions must co-exist in order to confer jurisdiction on the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer is obliged, before initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, to record the reasons for the formation of his belief to reopen the assessment. 4. In the above it is explicitly clear that the Income Tax Officer has not recorded any opinion that the income has been under-assessed. Over and above, the Income Tax Officer has also not recorded any reason as to believe the argument that the :3: under-assessment was due to omission or fault on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully or truly all necessary material facts. Under these circumstances and also in view of the finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal. Hence, the same stands dismissed. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)