Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta,J. - (1.) The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), dated December 18, 2002, and the other four orders dated December 19, 2002, one each relating to the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 are under challenge in this present application.
(2.) In regular assessment, the petitioner filed returns of income for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01. The assessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer allowing refund in each assessment year of a substantial amount. The petitioner accordingly from time to time claimed refund in view of the aforesaid orders. Instead of refunding the above amount the impugned notices for each year have been issued on December 18, 2002, and the impugned orders were passed, whereby and whereunder the respondents want to reassess. Pursuant to the said notice and orders the petitioner did not submit separate returns however, reiterated that the earlier returns should be treated to be the returns for reassessment. The Revenue thereafter issued several notices under Section 142 of the said Act and passed order directing the petitioner to get their accounts specially audited by the auditor as nominated by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the said Act. The said order of special audit has been under challenge in this court and by the judgment and order dated February 23, 2004, the said writ petition was disposed of and whereby and whereunder order of special audit was quashed but liberty has been granted to proceed afresh after having examined the books of account of the petitioner and having formed opinion as to the complexity and nature of the accounts for such special audit.
(3.) Thereafter the petitioner by a letter dated January 5, 2004, asked the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax to divulge the reasons for formation of belief. In response to this letter the Assessing Officer being the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-56, Kolkata, has disclosed his reasons for reassessment for each of the above assessment years. The reasons divulged by him are that the petitioner is detected to have made investment in Government securities in Rs. 59,77,96,150 and other securities in Rs. 43,25,43,630 both in permanent nature. Therefore, income derived therefrom is taxable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (Addl.), though deduction under Section 80P of the said Act was granted previously by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the aforesaid income on account of the interest and discount from the aforesaid investments has escaped assessment. The orders containing reasons to believe in relation to the aforesaid assessment years are same.;