PRAKASH KRISHNA, RAM SURAT RAM(MAURYA), JJ. - (1.) SRI Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the Department submits that he does not want to file reply to the supplementary counter affidavit as he does not have to add anything more.
(2.) HEARD Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has established a factory for the manufacturing of Single Super Phosphate Fertilizer at Bewer Road, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad in the year 1984 -85. In the manufacture of Single Super Phosphate, one of the raw materials is Rock Phosphate. The petitioner claims that Sulphuric Acid is also raw material and the said item is excisable under the Central Excise Act. The further claim of the petitioner is that it is manufacturing Single Super Phosphate in the ordinary course of business.
(3.) BY means of the present petition the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the Assessment Years 1995 -96 and 1996 -97. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Department does not possess any material to form a belief that the income of the petitioner in the aforesaid relevant assessment years has escaped assessment. The submission is that the reasons recorded by the officer concerned are inadequate to form an opinion that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment.;