9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 34 - HC - Income TaxWhether Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessment under Chapter XIV-B in the light of the specific provision contained in section 158BB(1)(c)? - unless the provisions of the block assessment specifically bar the assessing authority from taking into consideration the income disclosed by the assessee on payment of the advance tax to be taken into consideration the income disclosed by the assessee on payment of advance tax would be an income disclosed to the Revenue and cannot be treated as an income undisclosed - Held that the income disclosed on account of payment of the advance tax cannot be held to be undisclosed income for the purposes of block assessment - the question is answered in the affirmative against the Revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessment under Chapter XIV-B in light of the specific provision contained in section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the payment of advance tax by the assessee can be considered as a disclosure of income and thus not treated as undisclosed income for the purposes of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B. Detailed Analysis: 1. Tribunal's Cancellation of Assessment under Chapter XIV-B: The core issue revolves around the Tribunal's decision to cancel the assessment under Chapter XIV-B, section 158BD of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the income of the assessee, which had paid advance tax in three installments totaling Rs. 4,80,000, could not be considered undisclosed. The Tribunal's rationale was that the payment of advance tax indicated a disclosure of income, thus invalidating the assessment under Chapter XIV-B. 2. Definition and Implications of Undisclosed Income under Section 158B(b): The Revenue contended that the case fell under the definition of undisclosed income as per section 158B(b) of the Act. They argued that mere payment of advance tax does not establish an intent to disclose income, referencing the decision in B. Noorsingh v. Union of India [2001] 249 ITR 378. The court in B. Noorsingh's case held that the payment of advance tax alone does not equate to income disclosure, emphasizing that the actual filing of a return is necessary for disclosure. 3. Legal Precedents and Statutory Consequences of Advance Tax Payment: The court examined several precedents to determine the implications of advance tax payments: - Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1992] 194 ITR 659 (Guj): This case clarified that the liability to pay tax arises as soon as rates are prescribed by legislation, and the tax paid on the basis of self-assessment remains valid unless disturbed by a regular assessment. - CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367: The Supreme Court held that the inability to frame another assessment after the earlier one is nullified does not entitle the assessee to claim a refund of advance tax, as it indicates an admission of liability. - Dr. Mrs. Aloka Goswami v. CIT [2004] 268 ITR 178 (Gauhati): This decision reinforced that advance tax payment reflects the income admitted by the assessee and cannot be treated as undisclosed income for block assessment purposes unless specifically barred by statutory provisions. 4. Conclusion and Judgment: The court concluded that the observations in B. Noorsingh's case pertain to the filing of returns post-search but do not negate the statutory consequences of advance tax payments. Consequently, the income disclosed by the assessee through advance tax payments cannot be regarded as undisclosed income. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering the substantial question of law in the affirmative, against the Revenue, and in favor of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed, upholding that the advance tax payments by the assessee constituted a disclosure of income, thus invalidating the assessment under Chapter XIV-B. Summary: The High Court of Madras upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the assessment under Chapter XIV-B, section 158BD, determining that the advance tax payments by the assessee indicated a disclosure of income. The court relied on various legal precedents to conclude that such payments cannot be treated as undisclosed income, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
