9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (11) TMI 74 - HC - Income TaxTribunal annulling the assessment made by issue of notice under section 148 - (1) Whether Tribunal could be said to be correct in deciding that the notice under section 148 issued to the assessee-HUF was not meant for it but for the Karta as an individual? - (2) Whether Tribunal is right in annulling the assessment made by issue of notice under section 148 on the ground that no valid notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee-HUF? - Revenue has not advanced any argument that the finding of the Tribunal that notice under section 148 was meant for the karta of the Hindu undivided family and not in his individual capacity. - finding of the Tribunal that the notice under section 148 of the Act did not disclose that it was issued to reassess the escaped income of the Hindu undivided family is a finding of fact. - We answer both the questions in the affirmative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act issued to the assessee-Hindu undivided family (HUF) versus the individual. 2. Legitimacy of the reassessment made based on the notice under section 148. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notice under Section 148: The primary issue was whether the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was correctly issued to the assessee-HUF or mistakenly issued to the karta (head) in his individual capacity. The Tribunal concluded that the notices were issued to Shri Ram Lala Prasad in his individual capacity, not as the karta of the HUF. The notices were addressed to him as the proprietor of a business, implying they were meant for his individual income, not the HUF's income. The Tribunal held that this misdirection rendered the notices invalid and, consequently, the reassessments unsustainable. 2. Legitimacy of the Reassessment: The reassessments were challenged on the grounds that no valid notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee-HUF. The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had obtained approval for reopening the assessments for the HUF, but the notices were served on the individual, not the HUF. The returns were filed in the status of HUF, and the assessments were completed accordingly. However, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notices were not correctly addressed to the HUF. Legal Precedents and Arguments: - The Revenue's counsel argued that since the return was filed in the HUF status and the reassessment was intended for the HUF, the proceedings were valid. They cited cases like CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar, CIT v. Banarsilal Rajgarhia, Sajjan Kumar Saraf v. CIT, and Mahabir Prasad Poddar v. ITO to support their argument that minor clerical errors in notices do not invalidate reassessment proceedings. - The assessee's counsel contended that the ITO illegally assumed jurisdiction as the notice was issued to the individual, not the HUF. They relied on cases like CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty, CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, CIT v. Ishwar Singh and Sons, and CIT v. Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick, which emphasize that a notice must be correctly issued to the appropriate entity to confer jurisdiction for reassessment. Court's Reasoning: The court noted that a notice for reassessment under section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement. The ITO gains jurisdiction to reassess only after issuing and serving a valid notice. The court referenced several precedents, including: - CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar, where the Supreme Court dealt with a different context under the old Income-tax Act. - CIT v. Banarsilal Rajgarhia, which dealt with clerical errors in notices. - CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, which held that an invalid notice renders the entire proceedings void. - CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty, which emphasized that notices must be issued in the correct status (individual vs. HUF). The court concluded that the notice issued in the individual capacity of Shri Ram Lala Prasad could not be treated as a valid notice for the HUF. The Tribunal's finding that the notice did not disclose it was for the HUF was accepted as a finding of fact. The court held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notices were not correctly issued to the HUF. Conclusion: Both questions were answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, affirming that the notices issued were invalid and the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction. No order as to costs was made.
|
