- (1.)IN these four appeals the assessee has, in addition to challenging the consolidated order of the CIT(A) with respect to various additions and findings on merits including as to whether income included in assessee's assessments did belong to assessee or the HUF styled as M/s Ram Dihal & Sons (HUF), Jaunpur, has challenged the very validity of initiation of the proceeding under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), by way of following grounds.
Ground No. 1.

Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of action under Section 147 and the assessment made thereunder.

Ground No. 1.

Because there existed no material which could lead to the 'formation of belief that as far as the appellant was concerned, his income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, and consequently the initiation of proceedings thereunder as also the assessment made in pursuance thereof are void ab initio.

(2.)The grounds on merits, except nature and quantum of various additions, numbered as ground Nos. 2 to 12 are also common, Ground No. 13 is of general nature, which requires no separate adjudication.
These appeals were heard for the first time on 1st Feb., 2001, when the assessee challenging the validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and the consequential actions including the assessment dt. 31st March, 1998, for all the four years by submitting that:

(i) The mandatory requirement of recording of the reasons as envisaged by the provisions of Section 148(2) of the Act has not been met with because, no reason had been recorded before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act.

(ii) Notices under Section 148 had not been served on the assessee.

3.2. The assessee's counsel reserving his right to make submissions against the validity of the reasons, if recorded (because the copy of the same had not been furnished to the assessee), further submitted that there was no material or information with the ITO which could led him to form his belief or on the basis of which he could have reasons to believe that assessee's any income chargeable to tax for or any of these assessment years had escaped assessment. In support of his submissions the counsel relied on the decisions in following cases :

(a) Sheonath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC);

(b) ITO v. Lakhmani Mawal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC);

(c) Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC); and

(d) K.M. Bansal v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 247 (All).

(3.)THE learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were validly initiated by meeting the mandatory requirements with respect to recording of reasons and service of the notices under Section 148 of the Act. Since the assessee had not been supplied a copy of the reasons, if any recorded, the learned Departmental Representative was directed to furnish the copies of reasons recorded and also to provide a copy of the same to the assessee.