R.K. Agrawal, J. - (1.) In all these writ petitions, the petitioners who belong to the same group, have challenged the notices issued to them under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in respect of the various assessment years beginning from 2000-01 to 2002-03, which vary in each of the petitions. As all these petitions raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 504 of 2006, filed by Chandra Pra-kash Agrawal, is being treated as the leading petition. We are, therefore, giving the facts of this petition. Except for the assessment years and the assessment orders having been passed either under Section 143(1)(a) or under Section 143(3) of the Act, the facts are common in all the petitions.
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, Chandra Prakash Agrawal, he is a partner of M/s. Sri Ram Chandra Prakash, situate at Kayamganj in the district of Farrukhabad and is the head of group of business houses, functioning in the name and style of M/s. J. M. Tobacco Company, M/s. J. M. Agrawal Tobacco Company Private Limited and M/s. Satya Prakash and Company. For the assessment year 2000-01 he had filed his return of income showing an income of Rs. 16,82,676 and agricultural income of Rs. 1,24,582. He had paid the tax of Rs. 5,14,583. The return of income so filed was accepted under the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by the assessing authority on January 1, 2001. A search was conducted on June 7, 2001, by the officers of the Directorate General, Central Excise, New Delhi, at the business premises of the petitioner, which prepared a panchnama on June 8, 2001. Certain documents were seized by the search party, which finds mention in the said panchnama. On the basis of the search conducted by the Central Excise Department, the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Agra, initiated proceedings under Section 132A by issuance of notice dated March 27, 2002. The petitioner was required to give statement on the documents/papers seized by the Central Excise Department. In response to the notice dated March 27, 2002, the petitioner submitted that the papers seized by the Central Excise Department do not reflect his income but, still with a view to purchase peace, offered a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 in the proceedings under Section 132A of the Act in respect of the group of cases of M/s. J. M. Tobacco Company, M/s. J. M. Agrawal Tobacco Company Private Limited, M/s. Satya Prakash and Company, Laxmi Narain Agrawal and himself. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Agra, sent a requisition on April 18, 2002, purporting to be under Section 132A of the Act by which he had requisitioned the seized material from the Central Excise Department. The petitioner wrote a letter on February 10, 2005, asking the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Agra, to initiate proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act for completing block assessment pursuant to surrender of Rs. 50,00,000 for the entire group. The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Agra, vide letter dated March 7, 2005, had informed the petitioner that since the original papers/documents/accounts have not been made available by the Central excise authorities, notice under Section 158BC of the Act cannot be issued. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide letter dated March 9, 2005, requested the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Farrukhabad, to contact the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Agra, for issuing notice under Section 158BC of the Act for completing the block assessment. Instead of initiating the proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, Farrukhabad, respondent No. 1, had initiated proceedings for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act by issuing a notice dated March 22, 2005. The petitioner, vide application dated March 9, 2005, requested a month's time for compliance with the notice. However, vide application dated April 11, 2005, the petitioner requested respondent No. 1 to treat the return already filed by him on August 21, 2000, for the assessment year 2000-01 as a return filed in compliance with the notice dated March 22, 2005. He also requested for disclosing the reason for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. Respondent No. 1, vide notice dated November 10, 2005, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, asked the petitioner to appear and produce certain documents to which he filed detailed objections. Respondent No. 1 had supplied the reasons vide letter dated December 9, 2005. The notice dated March 22, 2005, issued under Section 148 of the Act is under challenge in the present writ petition on various grounds, inter alia, that the proceeding under Section 148 of the Act is not meant for a roving and fishing enquiry and the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment in respect of different firms to iron out the actual alleged suppression of income as he had disclosed its income truly and faithfully at the time of furnishing the return. Further, the assessing authority had no reason to believe before issuing the notice in question and from the perusal of the reasons it is apparent that the names of the parties who are said to have taken the loan/milk account and corroborated the transaction, are missing and, therefore, it cannot be said that any income has escaped assessment. The notice in question has also been challenged on the ground that as the books of account and other documents have been requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act from the Central Excise Department on April 18, 2002, the assessment of undisclosed income can only be made under Section 158BC of the Act, as per the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act and no action under Section 148 of the Act can be taken. Further, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the photostat copy of the seized material when the original document is not with him especially when the petitioner had already surrendered a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 for the entire group of proceedings under Section 132 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Agra, consequent to receipt of notice under Section 158BC of the Act to which income, if any, pertains and, therefore, the entire proceedings including the notice being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, are liable to be quashed.;