CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company

321 ITR 526High Court2010#3103 most cited

What is CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company authority for?

An assessment is invalid if the Assessing Officer (AO) seeks only to ascertain the source of funds without forming a belief, based on tangible material, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. A mere expression of doubt or a need for deeper scrutiny without any supporting evidence does not justify invoking reassessment powers.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Batra Bhatta Company · 321 ITR 526 · section 148 · escaped assessment · tangible material · belief · income escaping assessment · reassessment · AO belief · material facts

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 112(1)Section 115JAASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialmaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 55valuation of sharesgoing concernsection 80hsection 148(2)full value of considerationtransfer of capital asset

Judgments citing CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company

M/S. Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 172/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.172/RJT/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/s Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot. PAN: AAKFS6892E (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Vimal Desai, A.R : Revenue by Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 3…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 3…

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…ated 29.6.2018. 3. ITAT, Jaipur Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Gyandeep Khemka in ITA No. 695/JP/2018. 4. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) 5. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC) 6. 395 ITR 255 (Del.) Rajiv Aggarwal vs. ACIT 7. 321 ITR 526 (Del.) CIT vs. Batra Bhatta & Co. 8. 132 ITR 707 at page 710 Ashok Kumar Sen vs. ITO. 9. 298 ITR 198 (Del.) Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT. 10. 87 ITR 349 (SC) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 11. 82 ITR 147 (SC) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC. 12. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 13. 253 ITR 83 Bawa Abhai Singh. 14. 159 IT…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cr 4, Mumbai vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Cc- 4(3) Central M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Range-4, Room No. 1921, Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Express Highway, Opp Sion Building, Nariman Point, Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400022. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.132/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 4(3) Central Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern Range-4, Room No. 1921, C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Express Highway, Opp Sion Vs. Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…ces Ltd. Vs. ACIT [332 ITR 587(Bom)], Khubchandani Health parks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors [384 ITR 322], Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar vs. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293], Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Batra Bhatia Company [321 ITR 526], CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. [354 ITR 536], Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561(SC)] . 7. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2010 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessment…

M/S. Halcrow Group Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…alaut Vs ITO in ITA No. 413/Del/2013 order dated 23.04.2018 ITA Nos. 5163 & 5164/Del/2010 6 & ITA No. 5554/Del/2012 Halcrow Group Ltd. " Halcrow Group Ltd. Vs ADIT in ITA Nos. 5161 & 5162/Del/2010 order dated 20.05.2011 " CIT Vs Batra Bhatta Company (2010) 321 ITR 526 (Del.) " Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs ITO (2011) 56 DTR 212 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. in SLP CC No. 1589/2013 (SC) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) " Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) " Mohan Gupta (HUF) Vs CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del.…

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…16 order dated 28.04.2017 " M/s Layak Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 491/Del/2014 order dated 15.07.2016 " Pragati Vanijya Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5096/Del/2014 order dated 31.07.2017 " Rajiv Aggarwal Vs ACIT 395 ITR 255 (Del.) " CIT Vs Batra Bhatta & CO. 321 ITR 526 (Del.) " Ashok Kumar Sen Vs ITO 132 ITR 707 (Del.) " Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT 398 ITR 198 (Del.) " CIT Vs G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) " Unique Metal Industries Vs ITO in ITA No. 1372/Del/2015 order dated 28.10.2015 " Punjab Metal Store Vs ITO in ITA No. 512/Del/2015 order dated 02.12.2015 " Jiten Gurnani Vs ITO in ITA No. 490…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…is a case for investigation as to the truth of the alleged transactions is not the same thing as saying that there are reasons to issue a notice under section 148. 4.7 He relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company (321 ITR 526 (Del), wherein it was held as below : 4.8 He relied on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom.), wherein it was held that: “mere fact that more details were sought or some verification was sought with regard to value of these shares in terms of section 47(iii), would not en…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…is a case for investigation as to the truth of the alleged transactions is not the same thing as saying that there are reasons to issue a notice under section 148. 4.7 He relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company (321 ITR 526 (Del), wherein it was held as below : 4.8 He relied on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom.), wherein it was held that: “mere fact that more details were sought or some verification was sought with regard to value of these shares in terms of section 47(iii), would not en…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…is a case for investigation as to the truth of the alleged transactions is not the same thing as saying that there are reasons to issue a notice under section 148. 4.7 He relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company (321 ITR 526 (Del), wherein it was held as below : 4.8 He relied on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom.), wherein it was held that: “mere fact that more details were sought or some verification was sought with regard to value of these shares in terms of section 47(iii), would not en…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…is a case for investigation as to the truth of the alleged transactions is not the same thing as saying that there are reasons to issue a notice under section 148. 4.7 He relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company (321 ITR 526 (Del), wherein it was held as below : 4.8 He relied on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom.), wherein it was held that: “mere fact that more details were sought or some verification was sought with regard to value of these shares in terms of section 47(iii), would not en…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…is a case for investigation as to the truth of the alleged transactions is not the same thing as saying that there are reasons to issue a notice under section 148. 4.7 He relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company (321 ITR 526 (Del), wherein it was held as below : 4.8 He relied on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom.), wherein it was held that: “mere fact that more details were sought or some verification was sought with regard to value of these shares in terms of section 47(iii), would not en…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 2650/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 147

…eliance is placed, inter alia, on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.)(FB) (ii). CIT vs. Goetz India Ltd., 229 CTR 167 (Del.) (iii). CIT vs. Modipon Ltd., 2011-TOIL-355-HC-DEL-IT (iv). CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company 321 ITR 526 (Del.) (v). Ferrous Infrastructure P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 120 DTR 281 (Del.) (vi). PCIT vs. Tupperware India P. Ltd., 127 DTR 161 (Del.). 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below on this count. ITA Nos. 2650, 2652 & 2653/Del./2012 and CO. No. 278/Del./2012 10 9. Having considered the rival submissions in the li…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2651/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 147

…opening of assessment is bad in law. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SMCC Construction India Ltd. Vs. ACIT – [2014] 220 Taxman 354 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company – [2008] 321 ITR 526 (Delhi). 13. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 14. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find that learned CIT(A) at page 3 of his order has reproduced the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, which read as under:- “You have claimed…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projects India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 147

…opening of assessment is bad in law. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SMCC Construction India Ltd. Vs. ACIT – [2014] 220 Taxman 354 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company – [2008] 321 ITR 526 (Delhi). 13. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 14. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find that learned CIT(A) at page 3 of his order has reproduced the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, which read as under:- “You have claimed…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Engineering Projectsw India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 281/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 147

…opening of assessment is bad in law. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SMCC Construction India Ltd. Vs. ACIT – [2014] 220 Taxman 354 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Batra Bhatta Company – [2008] 321 ITR 526 (Delhi). 13. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 14. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find that learned CIT(A) at page 3 of his order has reproduced the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, which read as under:- “You have claimed…

CIT vs. Usha International Ltd

ITA - 2026 / 2010HC Delhi23 Apr 2012
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 260ASection 45(1)

…ssment order but has accepted the stand of the assessee without making reference in the assessment order, does not indicate or give a ground to hold that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind. 21. In the case of CIT vs. Batra Bhatta Company (2010) 321 ITR 526 (Del.), a Division Bench has observed that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment by recording that much deeper scrutiny than the one undertaken by the Assessing Officer is required. There must be some material upon which belief of the Assessing Officer should be founded. Thus, in cases where questionnaire is issued and the as…