Judgment :- 1. An assessee to income-tax has challenged the order of assessment imposing tax on him for the assessment year 1963-64 to the extent that the order, Ext. P1 has imposed tax on alleged profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year. It is admitted that there has been a transfer in the previous year. The assessee transferred the capital asset to his son for a consideration of Rs. 60,000. The capital asset so transferred is a valuable building in Ernakulam town. This building has been valued for the purpose of the wealth-tax at Rs. 95,600. The property was transferred to the minor son of the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 60,000. Because of the difference between the real value of the asset and the consideration received, the petitioner-assessee was assessed to gift tax for the year 1962-1963 on the difference between the sum of Rs. 95,600 and 60,000 the first being the value fixed for the building in question taken as the real value. 2. On the above facts, the petitioner has also now been taxed under the Income Tax Act on a sum of Rs. 35,600 being the difference between the value of the building as fixed for wealth tax purposes and the value of the building as shown in the document of transfer. 3. The relevant part of the order Ext. P-1 is in these terms : "During the year, the assessee transferred one of his house properties No. 17/10,264 to 10,269 in the cloth Bazaar Rd., Ernakulam for a consideration of Rs. 60,000 to his minor son Sri Mohammed alias Babu. This son had in his account his own accumulated income out of properties transferred in his name by persons other than his father and mother to pay this consideration of Rs. 60000. In the wealth tax assessment for the year 1962-63, the capital value of this building was estimated at 16-2/3rd times the net income and this amounted to Rs. 95,600. This valuation is very fair and it was not disputed by the assessee. Considering the relation between the transferor and the transferee, obviously the provisions of S.52 applies. Capital gains arising from this transaction will be included separately in its proper place." 4. 95,600. This valuation is very fair and it was not disputed by the assessee. Considering the relation between the transferor and the transferee, obviously the provisions of S.52 applies. Capital gains arising from this transaction will be included separately in its proper place." 4. I am not quoting the rest of the order because counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has frankly stated before me that the assessment can be maintained, if at all, only under S.52 of the Income Tax Act and not under S.64(iii) of the Act as is apparently assumed by the assessing authority. 5. Now the question is whether S.52 is satisfied. S.52 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is in these terms: "52. Consideration for transfer in cases of under-statement. - Where the person who acquires a capital asset from an assessee is directly or indirectly connected with the assessee and the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee under S.45, the full value of the consideration for the transfer shall, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, be taken to be the fair market value of the capital on the date of the transfer." 6. Two points are clear from the above. (a) A transfer must be by the assessee to a person who is directly or indirectly connected with the assessee and (b) the Income Tax Officer must have reason to believe that the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee under S.45. 7. Assuming that a blood relationship existing between the assessee and the transferee such as the one between father and son, would furnish the connection referred to in the section, the further question arises as to whether the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability under S.45. This object must be evident, at least discernible, from the facts available or adverted to. The Section uses the words 'reason to believe'. Similar words have been construed by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and another reported in 1961 SC. 372 and Their Lordships observed: "The expression 'reason to belive' postulates belief and the existence of reasons for that belief. The Section uses the words 'reason to believe'. Similar words have been construed by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and another reported in 1961 SC. 372 and Their Lordships observed: "The expression 'reason to belive' postulates belief and the existence of reasons for that belief. The belief must be held in good faith: It cannot be merely a pretence. The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer : the form of decision as to the existence of reasons and the belief is not in the mind of the Income Tax Officer." 8. It is clear from the relevant part of the assessment order which has been extracted earlier in this judgment that the assessing authority has not even chosen to say that he has reason to believe. Even if he had so stated that would not have been sufficient. His reason to believe must be based on the existence of reasons for the belief. None are discernible from the assessment order or from the assessment proceedings It is certainly not sufficient to say that this is obviously a case falling under S.52 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1961. This can be said perhaps in all cases of transfers to persons connected where the consideration of the transfer is inadequate. As I read the Section, the object, which means the predominant purpose, the predominant intention, must be to avoid the liability or reduce the liability imposed by S.45. I am unable to find anything in the order and on the facts and materials available which discloses such an object. 9. I therefore quash Ext. P1 to the extent to which it imposes tax on the assumed profits of R.35,600. 10. This does not mean that the assessing authority is precluded from reassessing the petitioner on the above sum if there are materials available which would satisfy the requirement of the Section. If the Income Tax Officer is satisfied there is material that material should be made known to the assessee¬petitioner before this Court and he must given a fair and reasonable opportunity to state his case before any attempt is made to reassess the petitioner. 11. This writ application is ordered as above regarding costs. There will be no direction. Allowed.