SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against order dated 13.9.17 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby a writ petition preferred by the appellant questioning the legality of notice dated 20.2.17 issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Bikaner (hereinafter referred as "AO"), under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14 and the order dated 2.6.17 rejecting the objections raised by the appellant, stands dismissed.
(2.) The facts relevant are that the appellant filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.9.13, disclosing total income at Rs. 7,66,540/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 20.2.17, AO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act proposing to assess/re-assess the income of the appellant for the said A.Y. and required him to deliver return in the prescribed form before the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. The appellant vide letter dated 2.3.17 requested the AO to supply the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. The AO vide letter dated 10.3.17 supplied the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act to the appellant. The appellant vide communication dated 14.3.17 requested to treat the return filed on his behalf for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.9.13 as filed in compliance of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. On 19.5.17, the appellant submitted its objections questioning the legality of the notice and reassessment proceeding initiated pursuant thereto. The appellant also demanded certified copies of the relevant documents on the basis of which the reasons for initiating re-assessment proceedings were recorded. The objections raised by the assessee questioning the validity of re-assessment proceedings stood rejected by the AO vide order dated 2.6.17. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with the observations that the objections raised by the assessee being totally factual, no fault can be found in the order observing that such objections can only be adjudicated at the time of dealing with the assessment order. Hence, this intra court appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.", 259 ITR 19(SC) , contended that it was bounden duty of the AO to dispose of the objections filed by the appellant in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act before proceeding with the assessment, by a speaking order. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of order makes it clear that none of the objections raised have been dealt with by the AO. Learned counsel submitted that the documents forming basis for initiating re-assessment proceedings were even supplied to the appellant and thus, no effective opportunity to file objections to the notice issued was extended by the AO to the appellant. It is submitted that by way of objections raised, the appellant had questioned assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act and therefore, the same were required to be dealt with at this stage and the decision thereon cannot be deferred till time assessment order is passed and thus, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in observing that the objection raised being totally factual can only be adjudicated at the time of dealing with the assessment order. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the reasons recorded reveal that the AO has spelled out as to how on the basis of the information/material available he has formed the opinion that the income has escaped assessment. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, there exists no live link or close nexus between material before the AO and the belief formed and thus, the mandatory pre-conditions for exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act cannot be said to have been satisfied. In support of the contentions, learned counsel has relied upon a decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of "Income Tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal Das", (1976)103 ITR 437 (SC) , "Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha and Ors.", (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) and Bench decisions of this court in the matters of "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shiv Ratan Soni", (2005) 279 ITR 261 and "Smt. Kiran Kanwar v. Union of India", (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.246/16, decided on 4.8.16) . Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had disclosed fully and truly all material particulars while filing the return and therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated on mere change of opinion is ex facie without jurisdiction.;