# Rochana Agarwal C/o Ved Prakash Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 793
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-28
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 37 of 2022
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rochana-agarwal-c-o-ved-prakash-agarwal-v-assistant-commissioner-of-income-tax-48242
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Sections 10(38), 133(6), 143, 147, 148 &
151 - Validity of Notice U/s 148 of Act,
1961 as well as order passed by ACIT
rejecting her objections against initiation
of re-assessment proceedings
- writ
petition - scope of power of judicial
review while scrutinizing a notice issued
U/s 148 of Act, - Section 147 provides Reassessment can be initiated only if the
Assessing officer has reason to believe
that any income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment for any assessment
year - in petitioner's case Assessing
officer has gone through the income tax
return and other related documents of the
Assesse and has observed that he Assesse
is a beneficiary of receiving bogus entries
which is believable - as such no case is
made out to interfere - sufficiency or
correctness of the material cannot be
considered at stage - accordingly writ
petition dismissed. (Para - 24, 26, 27, 28,)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

3 All. Rochana Agarwal C/o Ved Prakash Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax,
 Sitapur & Ors.
793
accordance with law, after affording
opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner.

19. Writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above with cost of
Rs.10,000/-.

20. A copy of this order be sent by the
Registrar General of this Court to the
Commissioner,
Commercial
Tax
U.P.
Lucknow who shall ensure that principles
of natural justice as contemplated under
Section 75(4) of the CGST/UPGST Act
2017
be
followed
by
Proper
Officers/Assessing Authorities in the State
of Uttar Pradesh.
----------
(2022)03ILR A793
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ Tax No. 37 of 2022

Rochana
Agarwal
C/o
Ved
Prakash
Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Surangama Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manish Misra, A.S.G.I., Dr. Ravi Kumar
Mishra

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Sections 10(38), 133(6), 143, 147, 148 &
151 - Validity of Notice U/s 148 of Act,
1961 as well as order passed by ACIT
rejecting her objections against initiation
of re-assessment proceedings
- writ
petition - scope of power of judicial
review while scrutinizing a notice issued
U/s 148 of Act, - Section 147 provides Reassessment can be initiated only if the
Assessing officer has reason to believe
that any income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment for any assessment
year - in petitioner's case Assessing
officer has gone through the income tax
return and other related documents of the
Assesse and has observed that he Assesse
is a beneficiary of receiving bogus entries
which is believable - as such no case is
made out to interfere - sufficiency or
correctness of the material cannot be
considered at stage - accordingly writ
petition dismissed. (Para - 24, 26, 27, 28,)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Raymond woolen Mills Ltd. Versus I.T.O.,
(1999) 236 ITR 36 (SC)

2. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO, (2008)
14 SCC 218

3. CIT Vs Techspan India (P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC
685,

4. Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vr.
CIT & another, 2004 SCC OnLine All 2133.

5. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO, (1993) 4
SCC 77

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Suyash Agrawal and
Ms. Surangama Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Shri Manish Misra,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
validity of a notice dated 31.03.2021 issued
by the Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax, Sitapur New (hereinafter referred to as
"ACIT") under Section 148 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
'Act') proposing to assess/reassess the
income/loss for the assessment year 201516, stating therein that he has reasons to
believe that petitioner's income chargeable
to tax has escaped assessment and directing
the petitioner to submit a return for the said
assessment year. The petitioner has also
challenged the order dated 02.09.2021
passed by the ACIT rejecting her objections
against the initiation of re-assessment
proceedings under Section 147 read with
Section 148 of the Act.

3. The petitioner's case is that on
30.03.2016, he had filed an income tax
return for the assessment year 2015-16 for
a total income of Rs. 10,69,430/- before the
Income Tax Officer-3 (5), Lakhimpur and
the return of the petitioner was processed
on the same day under Section 143 (1) of
the Act. On 16.05.2019, the Income Tax
Officer-3 (5), Lakhimpur Kheri had issued
a notice to the petitioner under Section 133
(6)
of
the Act
calling
for
certain
information pertaining to the assessment
year 2017-18. The petitioner submitted the
requisite information through her reply
filed on 04.06.2019 and the Income Tax
Officer accepted the submissions of the
petitioner made in her reply and dropped
the proceedings.

4. On 31.03.2021, the ACIT issued
the impugned notice under Section 148 of
the Act to the petitioner in respect of the
assessment year 2015-16 stating that he had
reason to believe that the petitioner's
income chargeable to tax for the said
assessment year has escaped assessment
within the meaning of Section 147 of the
Act. On 10.04.2021, the petitioner asked
for being provided with the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner's
contention is that the ACIT required her to
file a return in compliance of the notice
dated 31-03-2021 under Section 148 of the
Act and only then the reasons for reopening of the assessment would be
supplied to her. On 31.03.2021, the
petitioner filed a return in compliance to
the aforesaid notice dated 31-03-2021
under Section 148 of the Act before Income
Tax Officer-3 (5), Lakhimpur Kheri. On
01.06.2021, the ACIT supplied a copy of
the approval under Section 151 of the Act
containing the reasons for initiating the
proceedings under Section 147 read with
Section 148 of the Act and also containing
the satisfaction of the Approving Authority
for issuing notice under Section 148 of the
Act.

5. The ACIT has recorded that during
investigation, it was observed that the M/s
KCGP Share Broking Service Pvt. Ltd. has
been used to provide bogus accommodation
entries
to
various
beneficiaries.
The
assessee
has
sought
to
bring
his
unaccounted money into his regular books
and/or convert his unaccounted money into
camouflaged capital gain/loss and claiming
it to be exempt under Section 10 (38), or
setting of such bogus loss against genuine
taxable profits.

6. The ACIT has further noted that the
Assessing Officer has gone through the
income tax return and other related
documents of the assessee and has
observed that the assessee is one of the
beneficiaries of M/s KCGP Share Broking
Services Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in
providing accommodation entry to the
beneficiaries. The assessee is a beneficiary
of receiving bogus accommodation entries
3 All. Rochana Agarwal C/o Ved Prakash Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax,
 Sitapur & Ors.
795
to the tune of Rs. 6,94,540/-. The ACIT has
expressed the view that the assessee has
introduced her own undisclosed income in
her
books
of
account
by
way
of
accommodation
entries
by
showing
artificial transactions to make the same
valid transactions though it is simply a
planning to introduce unexplained money
to the tune of Rs. 6,94,540/- into books of
account. After considering the report of the
Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.),
Unit-3(3),
Kolkata
and
the
material
available on record, the ACIT recorded that
he has reason to believe that the income
amounting to Rs. 6,94,540/- has escaped
assessment in respect of the assessee.
Hence the issue of notice under Section 148
of the Act was deemed fit.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid
reasons, the Joint Commissioner of Income
Tax, Sitapur Range communicated that the
case falls under Clause 1 (v) of the
Instruction dated 04.03.2021 issued by the
CBDT, New Delhi and necessary approval
of the learned CCIT, Allahabad has been
obtained. Considering the reasons recorded
by the Assessing Officer, the Approving
Authority recorded satisfaction that it was a
fit case of issuance of a notice under
Section 148 of the Act.

8. The petitioner filed her objections
against the notice, stating that during the
assessment year 2015-16 she had earned
gain on sale of shares. The Income Tax
Officer-3 (5), Lakhimpur Kheri had made
an inquiry and had issued a notice to the
petitioner under Section 133 (6) of the Act
on the above transaction relating to shares.
The petitioner had submitted a written
reply alongwith the relevant evidences and
after examining the same, the Income Tax
Officer-3
(5),
Lakhimpur
Kheri
had
disposed of his notice/inquiry by recording
"submission of the assessee is accepted.
Hence, no action is required in this case".
No other factual point was raised by the
petitioner in her objections and besides the
aforesaid
sole
factual
objection,
the
petitioner relied upon certain case laws and
submitted that re-assessment without any
additional information would amount to
change of opinion and a mere change of
opinion does not empower the Assessing
Officer to re-open the assessment. The
petitioner requested for dropping the
proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.

9. On 02.09.2021, the ACIT, SitapurNew has passed an order rejecting the
petitioner's objection against initiation of
re-assessment proceedings which order has
been challenged by the petitioner by filing
this writ petition.

10.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by Shri Suyash Agrawal
and Ms. Surangama Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish
Misra, the learned counsel for Income Tax
Department.

11. Before proceeding to examine the
rival contentions advanced on behalf the
parties, it would be appropriate to refer to
some pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court explaining the scope of
judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India while examining the
validity of a notice issued under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act.

12. In Raymond woolen Mills Ltd.
Versus I.T.O., (1999) 236 ITR 36 (SC) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the
stage of the notice of reopening of the
assessment, the Court has only to see
whether there is prima facie some material
on the basis of which the Department could
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reopen the case. The sufficiency or
correctness of the material cannot be
considered at this stage.

13. Again, in Raymond Woollen
Mills Ltd. v. ITO, (2008) 14 SCC 218, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
while examining the validity of a notice
issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax
Act, "we do not have to give a final
decision as to whether there is a
suppression of material facts by the
assessee or not. We have only to see
whether there was prima facie some
material on the basis of which the
Department could reopen the case. The
sufficiency or correctness of the material is
not a thing to be considered at this stage."

14. In light of the aforesaid
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court we proceed to examine the rival
submissions of advanced on behalf of the
parties so as to ascertain as to whether there
was prima facie some material on the basis
of which the Department could reopen the
case, without going into the sufficiency or
correctness of the material.

15.

Mr.
Suyash Agarwal
has
submitted that the Income Tax Officer-3
(5), Lakhimpur Kheri had made an inquiry
and had issued a notice to the petitioner
under Section 133 (6) of the Act on the
above transaction relating to shares. The
petitioner had submitted a written reply
alongwith the relevant evidences and after
examining the same, the Income Tax
Officer-3
(5),
Lakhimpur
Kheri
had
disposed of his notice/inquiry by recording
"submission of the assessee is accepted.
Hence, no action is required in this case".
Therefore, there is no justification for
issuance of a notice under Section 148 of
the Act on the same issue.

16. A copy of the said order of ITO3(5) has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to
the Writ Petition. It does not bear any
number, date or the official seal of the
authority who has purportedly passed the
order so as to inspire even a prima facie
confidence
regarding
its
genuineness.
Moreover, it would be no bar against
issuance of a notice under Section 148 of
the Act, provided the requisite conditions
exist.

17. The reason for issuing the notice
under Section 148 of the Act is that during
investigation, the Assessing Officer has
gone through the income tax return and
other related documents of the assessee and
has found that the M/s KCGP Share
Broking Service Pvt. Ltd. has been used to
provide bogus accommodation entries to
various beneficiaries. The assessee is one
of the beneficiaries of M/s KCGP Share
Broking Services Pvt. Ltd., which is
engaged
in
providing
accommodation
entries to the beneficiaries. The assessee is
a
beneficiary
of
receiving
bogus
accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.
6,94,540/-. The ACIT has expressed the
view that the assessee has introduced her
own undisclosed income in her books of
account by way of accommodation entries
by showing artificial transactions to make
the same valid transactions, though it is
simply a planning to introduce unexplained
money amounting to Rs. 6,94,540/- into
books of account. After considering the
report of the Assistant Director of Income
Tax (Inv.), Unit-3(3), Kolkata and the
material available on record, the ACIT
recorded that he has reason to believe that
the income amounting to Rs. 6,94,540/- has
escaped assessment in respect of the
assessee. Hence the issuance of notice
under Section 148 of the Act was deemed
fit.
3 All. Rochana Agarwal C/o Ved Prakash Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax,
 Sitapur & Ors.
797

18. By means of the earlier notice
dated 16-05-2019 issued under Section 133
(6) of the Act regarding the case of the
petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18,
the Assessing Officer had merely called for
the following informations :-

(i) copy of DEMAT A/c and
substantiate that the entire profit on sale of
scripts was offered to tax.

(ii) Financial ledger for F.Y.
2014-15 showing all transactions related to
shares.

(iii) Copies of complete contract
notes with regard to the shares/securities
transaction undertaken during the F.Y.
2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16.

(iv) Explain the source for the
investment made in the transactions.

19. Thus it is clear that the aforesaid
notice
dated
16-05-2019
calling
for
information under Section 133 (6) of the
Act in the case of the petitioner for the
assessment year 2017-18, did not at all
cover the reasons for issuance of the notice
under Section 148 for the assessment year
2015-16. Moreover, while issuing the
notice under Section 133 (6) or while
allegedly passing the unnumbered, undated
and
unsealed
order
dropping
further
proceedings in pursuance of the notice
relating to assessment year 2017-18, no
opinion had been framed by the Assessing
Officer regarding the reasons on which the
notice under Section 148 of the Act has
been issued for the assessment year 201516.

20. In the objections filed against the
notice under Section 148 of the Act, the
petitioner has relied upon certain decisions
of the other High Courts holding that
reassessment
without
any
additional
information amounts to change of opinion.

21. The meaning of the expression
"change of opinion" has been explained by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v.
Techspan India (P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC
685, in the following words: -

"16. To check whether it is a case
of change of opinion or not one has to see
its meaning in literal as well as legal terms.
The words "change of opinion" imply
formulation of opinion and then a change
thereof.
In
terms
of
assessment
proceedings, it means formulation of belief
by an assessing officer resulting from what
he thinks on a particular question. It is a
result of understanding, experience and
reflection.

17. It is well settled and held by
this Court in a catena of judgments and it
would be sufficient to refer to CIT v.
Kelvinator of India Ltd. wherein this Court
has held as under: (SCC p. 725, para 5-7)

"5. ... where the assessing officer
has reason to believe that income has
escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to
reopen the assessment. Therefore, post-1-41989, power to reopen is much wider.
However, one needs to give a schematic
interpretation to the words "reason to
believe"....
Section
147
would
give
arbitrary powers to the assessing officer to
reopen assessments on the basis of "mere
change of opinion", which cannot be per se
reason to reopen.

6. We must also keep in mind the
conceptual difference between power to
review and power to reassess. The
assessing officer has no power to review;
he has the power to reassess. But
reassessment has to be based on fulfilment
of certain precondition and if the concept of
"change of opinion" is removed, as
contended on behalf of the Department,
then, in the garb of reopening the
assessment, review would take place.
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. One must treat the concept of
"change of opinion" as an in-built test to
check abuse of power by the assessing
officer. Hence, after 1-4-1989, assessing
officer has power to reopen, provided there
is "tangible material" to come to the
conclusion that there is escapement of
income from assessment. Reasons must
have a live link with the formation of the
belief."

18. Before interfering with the
proposed reopening of the assessment on the
ground that the same is based only on a
change in opinion, the court ought to verify
whether the assessment earlier made has
either expressly or by necessary implication
expressed an opinion on a matter which is the
basis of the alleged escapement of income that
was taxable. If the assessment order is nonspeaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it
may be difficult to attribute to the assessing
officer any opinion on the questions that are
raised
in
the
proposed
reassessment
proceedings. Every attempt to bring to tax,
income that has escaped assessment, cannot
be absorbed by judicial intervention on an
assumed change of opinion even in cases
where the order of assessment does not
address itself to a given aspect sought to be
examined in the reassessment proceedings."

22. In the present case, prior to
issuing the notice in question, the Assessing
Officer had not formed any opinion
regarding the reasons on which the notice
under Section 148 of the Act has been
issued and, therefore, it is not a case of
"change of opinion" and challenge to the
notice under Section 148 of the Act on the
ground that it seeks to initiate reassessment
on the ground of a change of opinion,
cannot be accepted.

23. Sri Agarwal has contended that
the "reason to believe" must be of the
assessing officer himself and he cannot act
on the reasons recorded by any other
authority. In the present case, the assessing
officer has acted on a report of the Assistant
Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3 (3),
Kolkata. The notice issued on the basis of
information received from any other officer
cannot be said to have been issued by the
assessing officer on the basis of his own
"reasons to believe" and it does not
conform to the statutory mandate of
Section 148 of the Act. He has placed
reliance on a judgment of this Court in
Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and
others Versus Commissioner of IncomeTax and another, 2004 (271) ITR 113 =
2004 SCC OnLine All 2133, wherein it has
been held that: -

9. Under section 147 of the Act
the proceedings for the reassessment can be
initiated only if the Assessing Officer has
reason
to
believe
that
any
income
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment
for any assessment year. The question
whether the Assessing Officer had reasons
to believe is not a question of limitation
only but is a question of jurisdiction, a vital
thing, which can always be investigated by
the court in an application under article 226
of the Constitution as held in Daulatram
Rawatmal v. ITO, [1960] 38 ITR 301 (Cal);
Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO, [1968] 69 ITR
461 (All); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v.
ITO, [1961] 41 ITR 191; C.M. Rajgharia v.
ITO, [1975] 98 ITR 486 (Patna) and
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO,
[1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC)."

(Emphasis supplied)

24. A perusal of the reasons recorded
by the assessing officer shows that after
considering the report of the Assistant
Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3(3),
Kolkata,
the
Assessing
Officer
has
3 All. Rochana Agarwal C/o Ved Prakash Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax,
 Sitapur & Ors.
799
conducted an investigation and has gone
through the income tax return and other
related documents of the assessee and has
observed that the assessee is a beneficiary
of receiving bogus accommodation entries
to the tune of Rs. 6,94,540/- and it is only
thereafter that he has recorded that he has
reason
to
believe
that
the
income
amounting to Rs. 6,94,540/- has escaped
assessment in respect of the assessee. When
pursuant to an information received from
the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.),
Unit-3 (3), Kolkata, the assessing officer
has conducted an investigation, has gone
through the income tax return and other
related documents of the assessee and has
observed that the assessee is a beneficiary
of receiving bogus accommodation entries
to the tune of Rs. 6,94,540/- and he has
found a reason to believe that the income
amounting to Rs. 6,94,540/- has escaped
assessment in respect of the assessee, we
do not find any force in the submission
made on behalf of the petitioner that the
assessing officer has acted on a report of
the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.),
Unit-3 (3), Kolkata and he has not recorded
his own reasons to believe, and thus the
same is rejected.

25. Sri. Manish Mishra, the learned
Counsel for the respondents, has placed
reliance on the following passage of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993)
4 SCC 77: -

"19.
...Thus,
where
the
transaction itself on the basis of subsequent
information, is found to be a bogus
transaction, the mere disclosure of that
transaction
at
the
time
of
original
assessment proceedings, cannot be said to
be disclosure of the "true" and "full" facts
in the case and the ITO would have the
jurisdiction to reopen the concluded
assessment in such a case. It is correct that
the assessing authority could have deferred
the completion of the original assessment
proceedings
for
further
enquiry
and
investigation into the genuineness to the
loan transaction but in our opinion his
failure to do so and complete the original
assessment proceedings would not take
away his jurisdiction to act under Section
147 of the Act, on receipt of the
information subsequently. The subsequent
information on the basis of which the ITO
acquired reasons to believe that income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment
on account of the omission of the assessee
to make a full and true disclosure of the
primary facts was relevant, reliable and
specific. It was not at all vague or nonspecific.

...

25. From a combined review of the
judgments of this Court, it follows that an
Income Tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to
reopen assessment under Section 147(a) read
with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 only if on the basis of specific, reliable
and relevant information coming to his
possession subsequently, he has reasons
which he must record, to believe that by
reason of omission or failure on the part of
the assessee to make a true and full disclosure
of all material facts necessary for his
assessment during the concluded assessment
proceedings, any part of his income, profit or
gains chargeable to income tax has escaped
assessment. He may start reassessment
proceedings either because some fresh facts
come to light which were not previously
disclosed or some information with regard to
the facts previously disclosed comes into his
possession which tends to expose the
untruthfulness of those facts. In such
situations, it is not a case of mere change of
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opinion or the drawing of a different
inference from the same facts as were earlier
available but acting on fresh information.
Since, the belief is that of the Income Tax
Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming
the belief, is not for the Court to judge but it
is open to an assessee to establish that there
in fact existed no belief or that the belief was
not at all a bona fide one or was based on
vague,
irrelevant
and
non-specific
information. To that limited extent, the Court
may look into the conclusion arrived at by the
Income Tax Officer and examine whether
there was any material available on the record
from which the requisite belief could be
formed by the Income Tax Officer and further
whether that material had any rational
connection or a live link for the formation of
the requisite belief. It would be immaterial
whether the Income Tax Officer at the time of
making the original assessment could or,
could not have found by further enquiry or
investigation, whether the transaction was
genuine or not, if on the basis of subsequent
information, the Income Tax Officer arrives
at a conclusion, after satisfying the twin
conditions prescribed in Section 147(a) of the
Act, that the assessee had not made a full and
true disclosure of the material facts at the
time of original assessment and therefore
income chargeable to tax had escaped
assessment. The High Courts which have
interpreted Burlop Dealer case3 as laying
down law to the contrary fell in error and did
not appreciate the import of that judgment
correctly." (Emphasis supplied)

26. When we examine the facts of the
present case keeping into view the scope of
power of judicial review while scrutinizing a
notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as
explained in Raymond woolen Mills Ltd.
(1) and (2) and Phool Chand Bajarang Lal
(Supra), we find that the notice under
Section 148 of the Act has been issued by the
assessing
officer
after
conducting
an
investigation and going through the income
tax return and other related documents of the
assessee and after giving reason to believe
that the income amounting to Rs. 6,94,540/-
has escaped assessment in respect of the
assessee. We are satisfied that there is prima
facie material available on record before the
assessing officer for issuing a notice for
reassessment and the notice under Section
148 of the Act. While this Court examines the
validity of the notice issued under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, the Court does
not have to give a final decision as to whether
there is suppression of material facts by the
assessee or not and the sufficiency or
correctness of the material is not a thing to be
considered at this stage.

27. Thus, in our considered opinion the
order dated 02-09-2021 passed by the
Assessing Officer rejecting the petitioner's
objections against issuance of the notice, does
not suffer from any such illegality as to
warrant interference by this Court in exercise
of its Writ Jurisdiction,

28. The Writ Petition lacks merits and
is, accordingly, dismissed.

29. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2022)03ILR A800
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

First Appeal No. 351 of 2020

Smt. Mohit Preet Kapoor ...Appellant
Versus
Sumit Kapoor ...Respondent