# The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Abhishek Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-29
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1000840 of 2015
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-company-ltd-v-abhishek-kumar-ors-48735
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Insurance Claim-Clause 4 &
22(b) of the Agreement-rejection of claim
on the ground of non-furnishing of the
computerized khatauni being as required
under
Clause
4
of
the
agreementgenuineness of the khatauni on the record
as provided by the private respondent
under clause 2 of the agreement had
never been disputed-thus, the claim shall
not be rejected or repudiated on mere
technicalities-non-furnishing
of
computerized khatauni alone will not
come in the way of the claim of farmers
claimants, as this would be against the
spirit of beneficial agreement-rejection of
claim on the said ground is wholly illegalhaving
regard
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case as well as the
resultant delay would quantify the amount
of penalty at Rupees 75000/- and to this
extent, the judgments are modified.(Para
1 to 21)

The petitions are partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. In the present case, the arbitrary
exercise of power cancelling the registration
in the manner in which it has been done has
not only adversely affected the petitioner, but
has also adversely affected the revenues that
could have flown to the coffers of GST in
case the petitioner was permitted to carry out
the commercial activities. The actions are
clearly not in consonance with the ease of
doing business, which is being promoted at
all levels. For the manner in which the
petitioner
has
been
harassed
since
20.05.2020, the State Government is liable to
pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.
The said cost of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to
the petitioner within a period of two months,
failing with the petitioner shall be entitled to
file a contempt petition.

25. The writ petition is allowed in
above terms.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 1000840 of 2015
along with
other connected cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Abhishek Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vaibhav Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Naresh Singh Chauhan

A. Civil Law-Insurance Claim-Clause 4 &
22(b) of the Agreement-rejection of claim
on the ground of non-furnishing of the
computerized khatauni being as required
under
Clause
4
of
the
agreementgenuineness of the khatauni on the record
as provided by the private respondent
under clause 2 of the agreement had
never been disputed-thus, the claim shall
not be rejected or repudiated on mere
technicalities-non-furnishing
of
computerized khatauni alone will not
come in the way of the claim of farmers
claimants, as this would be against the
spirit of beneficial agreement-rejection of
claim on the said ground is wholly illegalhaving
regard
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case as well as the
resultant delay would quantify the amount
of penalty at Rupees 75000/- and to this
extent, the judgments are modified.(Para
1 to 21)

The petitions are partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. O.I.C Ltd. Thru Div. Mgr. Vs Chote Singh &
ors. WP No. 20736 of (M/S) of 2018

2. O.I.C Ltd. Thru Div. Mgr. VsSmt. Ramkali
@Rajkumari & ors. 5324 of (M/S) 2015

3. Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Mgr., National Ins.
Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the
private respondents.

2. All the above-noted writ petitions
involve
common
questions
for
consideration raised by the petitioner
praying for rejection of the claim of the
claimants on the ground their nonfurnishing of the computerized khatauni
being as required under Clause 4 of the
agreement and about imposition of penalty
upon the petitioner under Clause 22(b) of
the agreement. Hence, all the above said
8 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Kumar & Ors.
177
petitions have been heard in a bunch and
they are being disposed of by means of this
common judgment to be applicable to all
the writ petitions. The petitioner-Oriental
Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to
as 'Petitioner Insurance Company') has
preferred these writ petitions against the
orders passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, Lucknow allowing the insurance
claim of the claimants and imposing
penalty upon the petitioner under Clause
22(b) of the agreement.

(i) The writ petition i.e. Writ C
No. 1000840 of 2015 has been preferred
for quashing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in P.L.A.
Case No. 52 of 2014 (Abhishek Kumar and
another Vs. O.I.C. Ltd. and others).

(ii) The writ petition i.e. Writ C
No. 1005294 of 2014 has been preferred
for quashing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in P.L.A.
Case No. 134 of 2013 (Smt. Kusum Kali
Vs. O.I.C. Ltd. and others).

(iii) The writ petition i.e. Writ C
No. 1003370 of 2014 has been preferred
for quashing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in P.L.A.
Case No. 07 of 2014 (Smt. Sushila Devi
Vs. O.I.C. Ltd. and others).

(iv) The writ petition i.e. Writ C
No. 1007020 of 2014 has been preferred
for quashing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in P.L.A.
Case No. 51 of 2014 (Smt. Durgawati @
Shiv Devi Vs. O.I.C. Ltd. and others).

(v) The writ petition i.e. Writ C
No. 1007019 of 2014 has been preferred
for quashing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 26.07.2014 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in P.L.A.
Case No. 66 of 2014 (Smt. Madhuri and
others Vs. O.I.C. Ltd. and others).

3. Learned counsel for the petitionerInsurance Company have submitted that the
judgments passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat are against Clause 4 of Agreement
dated 19.11.2009 entered into between the
Government of Uttar Pradesh and the
petitioner-Insurance Company. It is further
submitted that as per Clause 4 of the
Agreement, the documents mentioned in
said clause are required to be produced to
the petitioner- Insurance Company for
claim process which includes computerized
khatauni but the claimants had failed to
provide the computerized khatauni to the
petitioner-Insurance Company therefore,
their claims were liable to be rejected.

4. It is further submitted that the
petitioner-Insurance Company had acted on
the basis of Clause 4 of the Agreement
which is quoted hereunder for ready
reference:-

"Scope
of
Cover:-
Oriental
Insurance Company Limited hereby agrees,
subject to the terms, conditions and
exclusions
contained
or
otherwise
expressed in the policy document, to pay to
the insured a sum not exceeding the sum
insured during the tenure of the policy, if
any of the insured Person dies due to or
suffers disability as mentioned in the
benefit table due to sustaining any bodily
injury resulting from accident, caused by
external, violent and visible means, to the
extent and in the manner hereinafter
provided. The accident will included death
due to snake bite, drowning in River, Tank,
Pond or well, collapse of roof or falling of
tree, falling from roof or tree, vehicle
(including
tractor/trolley
and
tempo)
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accident, dacoity, riot, scuffle. Enmity,
violence, terrorist activities, fire, flood,
lightning thunder & electric shock etc.

Necessary documents will be
required to establish the cause of death.
The following documents will be required
to be produced to Oriental Insurance
Company Limited for claim processing.

(1) Fully complete claim Form

(2) Computerized Khatauni

(3) Age proof in following order
of priority-

(a)
Matriculation
Certificate/High School Certificate

(b)Parivar Register

(c) Ration Card

(d) Voter ID card/Voter List

(e) Any other age proof

(4) Post Mortem Report

(5) Copy of FIR/GD (in case of
death due to snake bite)

(6) Death Certificate

(7) Police panchnama

(8) CMO Certificate in cases of
disability

Postmortem report will not be
insisted upon where body is irrecoverable,
say due to flood or body is in such a shape
after accident the post mortem is not
possible. Also in case of drowning and
snakebite, FSL/CA report will not be
insisted upon to establish the cause of
death. Disablement, to the extent mentioned
in the benefit table, caused due to an
accident defined above, shall be covered.
The Policy covers accidental death and
disability/arising out of an accident only as
elaborated in the policy document."

5. The second submission raised by
the learned counsel for the petitionerInsurance Company is that imposition of
maximum penalty as provided under
Clause 22(b) of the Agreement is illegal
and exorbitant as there was no fault on the
part of petitioner-Insurance Company while
rejecting claim of the claimants. It is
further submitted that in the almost
identical
matters
wherein
also
the
judgments of the Permanent Lok Adalat
were under challenge pertaining to dispute
for rejection of claims of the claimants
under the Agreement dated 19.11.2009
have been decided by this Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 20736 of (M/S) of 2018 (The
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Thru.
Divisional Mgr. Vs. Chote Singh & Ors.)
and
5324
of
(M/S)
2015
(Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.
Thru
its
Divisional Manager Vs. Smt. Ramkali @
Rajkumari and others) wherein this Court
has quantified and reduced the penalty
from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.
75,000/- respectively. The relevant portion
of the judgment passed in the case of Chote
Singh (supra) is reproduced hereunder for
ready reference:-

"Insofar as the quantum of
penalty questioned in the present petition is
concerned, it is true that the imposition of
penalty in a situation of denial of claim is
Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand but the
present case in a situation of repudiation
letter dated 7.4.2011 not being final, can
only be treated to be a case of delayed
payment, therefore, the quantification of
penalty to the tune of Rs. One Lakh Fifty
Thousand is clearly illegal and arbitrary
and beyond the scope of clause 22(b) of the
agreement. This Court would also note that
every Permanent Lok Adalat is under a
bounden duty to undertake the process of
conciliation before advancing to adjudicate
a claim on merit. This aspect of the matter
has also not been dealt with by the
Permanent Lok Adalat in a manner
prescribed
under
law,
therefore,
the
imposition of maximum penalty, in my
humble view, is exorbitant.
8 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Kumar & Ors.
179

This Court having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the present case
as well as the resultant delay would
quantify the amount of penalty at Rs. Fifty
Thousand and to this extent, the impugned
award deserves to be modified.

The amount of penalty modified
to the aforesaid extent is thus affirmed. The
award
is
accordingly
modified.
The
petitioner is directed to discharge the
liability not later than a period of one
month from today."

6. The relevant part of the judgment
passed in the case of Smt. Ramkali @
Rajkumari and others (supra) is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:-

"7. However, considering the fact
that the present case is almost identical to
that one of the subject matter of judgement
dated 13.8.2018 passed in Writ Petition
No.20736 (MS) of 2018, interest of justice
would meet if the present writ petition is
also disposed of with direction to the
petitioner-Insurance Company to pay the
insured amount of Rs.1 Lakh with interest
@9% per annum from the date of the order
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The
amount of penalty is reduced from
Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- to be deposited
within a period of six weeks from today.
The amount of Rs.1 Lakh along with
interest @9% per annum from the date of
the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat as
well
as
the
amount
of
penalty
of
Rs.75,000/- to be deposited before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, shall be released in
favour of the opposite parties forthwith
after due verification of their identities. Any
amount deposited in pursuance of the
interim order dated 11.9.2015, shall be
adjusted against the total amount to be
paid by the petitioner-Insurance company
in pursuance of the order passed today. "

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the private respondents have submitted
that there is no illegality in the judgments
impugned herein passed by the Permanent
Lok Adalat. It is further submitted that as
per the Clause 2 of the Agreement, there is
no such requirement of providing the
computerized
khatauni.
It
is
further
submitted that Clause 17 of the Agreement
deals with exclusion even in that clause the
computerized khatauni is not a ground for
rejecting the claim.

8. Learned counsel for the private
respondents have relied upon the Clause 24
of the Agreement wherein it has been
provided that the claims will be accepted as
rule and would be rejected as an exception
and if there is any shortcoming or
deficiency in the documents filed, the
petitioner-Insurance Company would itself
make an inspection for confirming the
cause of death and shall make the payment
accordingly thus, the claims shall not be
rejected on mere technicalities.

9. It is further submitted that denying
the claim of the private respondents on the
ground
of
not
providing
copy
of
computerized khatauni is against the
Agreement particularly, when the reason
that due to consolidation proceedings, the
computerized khatauni was not available
with the private respondents.

10. It is further submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gurmel Singh Vs. Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil
Appeal No. 4071 of 2022), judgment
dated 20.05.2022) has held that the claim
shall not be denied on the ground of non
providing the documents which were
beyond the control of the person to procure
and furnish. It is lastly submitted that the
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
penalty imposed under Clause 22(b) of the
Agreement has rightly been imposed.

11. After hearing learned counsel for
the respective parties and going through the
record, the position which emerges out is
that the Agreement has been entered into
between the State of UP and the petitionerInsurance Company on 19.11.2009 with an
object to insure the farmers of Uttar
Pradesh for Rs. 1 lakh aged between 12 to
70 years whose names were in the revenue
records of the State of Uttar Pradesh as the
owner of the agricultural land under the
Janta Personal Accident Policy.

12. Undisputedly, Clause 4 of the
Agreement deals with scope of cover and it
has
been
provided
therein
that
the
documents mentioned in the said clause are
required to be produced to the petitionerInsurance Company for claim processing
including
the
computerized
khatauni.
Clause 4 is to be read in totality with other
clauses of the Agreement like Clause 2 of
the Agreement which talks about the
farmers whose names were in the Khatauni
records of the State of Uttar Pradesh as the
owner of the agricultural land shall be
covered
by
the
agreement.
For
convenience,
the
Clause
2
of
the
Agreement is quoted hereunder:-

"This is an unnamed policy and all
farmers in the age group of 12 to 70 years,
both inclusive, whose names appear in the
Khatauni records of the state of Uttar
Pradesh as the owner of agricultural land in
the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be covered
under this policy, without any selection, If a
farmer attains 12 years of age on any date
during the currency of policy period, he/she
will be deemed to be covered from such date.
But if a farmer crosses 70 years of age during
the tenure of this policy, he/she will also
remain covered till the end of the policy
period."

13. Similarly, Clause 17 of the
Agreement deals with exclusion, where the
petitioner-Insurance Company shall not be
liable under this policy. The Clause 17 is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

"17. Exclusions:

Oriental
Insurance
Company
Limited shall not be liable under this Policy
for:-

(i) Compensation under more than
one of the categories specified in the Basis of
Assessment of the JPA Policy document in
respect of the same period of disablement of
the Insured Person under this Policy.

(ii) Any other payment to the same
person under this policy after a claim under
one of the categories I & II as specified in the
Basis of Assessment of the JPA policy
document of claims he has been admitted and
become payable. However, this exclusion
shall apply only to this policy and shall in no
way affect benefits derived by the Insured
Person or his/her legal heir(s) under any
other Insurance Policy or Scheme.

(iii) Any payment in case if more
than one claim in respect of such Insured
person, under this policy during any one
period of insurance by which the sum
payable as per the Basis of Assessment of
Claims of this Policy to such insured person
exceeds the maximum liability of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited as applicable to
such insured person.

(iv) Payment of compensation in
respect of death, injury or disablement of
insured person.

(a) From intentional self-injury,
suicide or attempted suicide.

(b) Whilst under the influence of
intoxication of liquor or psychotropic
drugs.
8 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Kumar & Ors.
181

(c) Whilst engaging in aviation or
ballooning or whilst mounting into, or
dismounting form or traveling in any
balloon or aircraft other than as a
passenger (fare paying or otherwise) in any
duly licensed standard type of aircraft
anywhere in the world. Standard type of
aircraft means any aircraft duly licensed to
carry passengers (for hire or otherwise) by
appropriate
authority
irrespective
of
whether such an aircraft is privately owned
or chartered or operated by a regular
airline or whether such a aircraft has a
single engine or multi engine.

(v) Payment of compensation in
respect of death, injury of disablement of
the Insured Person due to, or arising but of,
or directly or indirectly connected with or
traceable to war, invasion, act of foreign
enemy, hostilities (where war be declared
or not) civil war, rebellion, revolution,
insurrection, mutiny military or usurped
power, seizure, capture arrests, restrains
and detainment of all kinds.

Payment of compensation in
respect of death or bodily injury on any
disease or illness to the Insured Persons:-

(a) Directly or indirectly caused
by or contributed to by or arising from
ionizing radiation or contamination by
radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or from
any nuclear waste or from the combustion
of nuclear fuel. For the purpose of this
exception, combustion shall include any
self sustaining process of nuclear fission.

(b) Directly or indirectly caused
by or contributed to by or arising from
nuclear weapon materials.

(vi) Death or disablement directly
or indirectly caused by an/or contributed to
and/or aggravated or prolonged by child
birth or pregnancy or in consequence
thereof.

(vii) Payment of compensation in
respect of injury or disablement directly or
indirectly arising out of or contributed by
or traceable to any disability existing on
the date of issue of this policy."

14. Clause 24 of the Agreement
provides that, the claim shall not be
rejected
or
repudiated
on
mere
technicalities. The said clause 24 of the
agreement is quoted hereunder:-

"This
Agreement
shall
be
implemented by following a procedure so
that the claims are accepted as a rule and
are rejected as an exception, in case the
farmer dies of accidental death and when
this fact comes in the knowledge of
Oriental Insurance Company Limited as
per this Agreement, and if there is nay
shortcoming or deficiency in the documents
filed, the Oriental Insurance Company
Limited would itself make an inspection for
confirming the cause of death and shall
make the payment accordingly. The claims
shall not be rejected or repudiated on mere
technicalities."

15. From the conjoint reading of the
aforesaid clauses of the agreement, the
position which emerges out is that by not
providing the computerized khatauni will
not take away the right of the claimants to
get insurance amount as per the agreement.
More particularly, in the present case, there
is a specific finding regarding non
providing of the computerized khatauni as
the letter of the Board of Revenue dated
30.06.2010, wherein it has been informed
that the consolidation proceedings were
going on and computerized Khatauni could
not be provided. The said findings have
neither been disputed in the pleadings of
the writ petitions nor urged as erroneous.

16. The genuineness of the khatauni
on the record as provided by the private
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents
under
Clause
2
of
the
agreement had never been disputed. In the
above circumstances, rejection of the claim
would only be a technicality, which is not
to be resorted to while dealing with such
claims as in hand. Non furnishing of
computerized Khautauni alone will not
come in the way of the claim of farmers
claimants, as this would be against the
spirit of the beneficial agreement and
reading of Clause 4 with other clauses of
the agreement.

17. As per the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Gurmel
Singh (supra), wherein the truck of the
appellant was stolen and he was unable to
provide certified duplicate copy of the
registration certificate which was denied by
the RTO as after receiving the information
of theft, the details regarding registration
certificate on the computer of the RTO was
locked and due to not providing the
duplicate certified copy of the registration
certificate, the insurance company denied
the claim of the claimant. In this case,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that
the insurance company has become too
technical while settling the claim. The
relevant extract of the judgment in the case
of Gurmel Singh (supra) is reproduced
hereinbelow, for ready reference:-

"4.1 In the present case, the
insurance
company
has
become
too
technical while settling the claim and has
acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been
asked to furnish the documents which were
beyond the control of the appellant to
procure and furnish. Once, there was a
valid insurance on payment of huge sum by
way of premium and the Truck was stolen,
the insurance company ought not to have
become too technical and ought not to have
refused to settle the claim on nonsubmission of the duplicate certified copy
of certificate of registration, which the
appellant could not produce due to the
circumstances beyond his control. In many
cases, it is found that the insurance
companies are refusing the claim on flimsy
grounds and/or technical grounds. While
settling the claims, the insurance company
should not be too technical and ask for the
documents, which the insured is not in a
position to produce due to circumstances
beyond his control. "

18. In view of the discussions made
above, it is found that there is no illegality
and perversity in the impugned judgments
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat as far
as accepting the insurance claims of the
private
respondents
and
hence,
no
interference is called for in the judgments
impugned.

19. From the above discussion made
hereinabove, the position with regard to the
applicability of Clause 22(b) of the
Agreement which emerges out is that as per
Clause
4
of
the
agreement,
the
computerized khatauni was required for the
purpose of the claim and hence it cannot be
said that rejection of claim on the said
ground is wholly illegal. As the judgments
relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner with regard to the quantifying the
penalty by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.
20736 of (M/S) 2018 and 5324 of (M/S)
2015 , this Court has held that the penalty
imposed as per Clause 22(b) of the
Agreement is exorbitant and quantified the
amount of penalty as Rs. 50,000/- and
75,000/- respectively.

20. This Court having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the resultant delay would quantify the amount
of penalty at Rs. 75,000/- and to this extent,
8 All. SR Cold Storage, Kanpur U.P. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
183
the impugned judgments are modified. The
amount of Rs.1 Lakh along with interest
@9% per annum from the date of the order of
the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as the
amount of penalty of Rs.75,000/- to be
deposited before the Permanent Lok Adalat
within a period of six weeks and shall be
released in favour of the opposite parties
forthwith after due verification of their
identities. If any amount was deposited
earlier that shall be adjusted against the total
amount to be paid by the petitioner-Insurance
company in pursuance of the order passed
today.

21. For the foregoing reasons, as
mentioned above, the petitions are partly
allowed in so far, it relates to reduction of
amount of penalty imposed under Clause
22(b) of the agreement only.

22. Let a copy of this judgment/order be
placed in the records of Writ-C Nos. 1005294
of 2014, 1003370 of 2014, 1007020 of 2014
& 1007019 of 2014.

23. The petitions are therefore, disposed
of in the manner as indicated above.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 183
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 723 of 2022

SR Cold Storage, Kanpur U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, Sri Satya Vrata
Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Mahajan, Sri Anant
Kumar Tiwari

A. Tax Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Sections 147/148, 142(1) & 246A - The
words "reason to believe" suggest that
the belief must be bona fide and must be
that of an honest and reasonable person
based upon reasonable grounds and that
the Income Tax Officer may act on direct
or circumstantial evidence but not on
mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. His
vague feeling that there might have been some
escapement of income from assessment is not
sufficient. In other words, such material on
which the assessing Authority bases its opinion
must not be arbitrary, irrational, vague, distant
or irrelevant. If the grounds for formation of
"reason to believe" are of an extraneous
character, the same would not warrant
initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the
Act, 1961. (Para 21)

Reassessment of income u/s 147 cannot
be made on change of opinion - If the
assessing Authority forms an opinion during the
original assessment proceedings on the basis of
material facts and subsequently finds it to be
erroneous; it is not a valid reason under the law
for re-assessment. (Para 21)

As per own admitted case of the respondents,
the cash deposit of Rs. 3,41,81,000/- was made
by the petitioner in its bank account with UBI
and there was absolutely no cash deposit by the
petitioner in Bank of Baroda whereas the entire
reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the
Act, 1961 against the petitioner, was initiated on
the alleged information of cash deposit of Rs.
13,67,24,000/- by the petitioner in its bank
account with Bank of Baroda. Thus, the reason
to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 147/148
was totally unfounded and false. In fact
initiation of proceedings and passing the
impugned reassessment order dated 31.03.2022
is a glaring example of highhandedness,
arbitrary actions and abuse of power by the
respondents on the one hand and on the other