2003 (12) TMI 43 - HC - Income Tax

Notice of reassessment - The impugned notice was issued in the month of August, 2003, and the petitioner rightly or wrongly filed its returns demanding disclosure of reasons, however, such reason was not communicated. As I have already observed that the assumption of jurisdiction depends upon the existence of the reasons followed by communication thereof to the assessee if the notice is challenged, the Income-tax Officer cannot proceed with the assessment under section 147 of the Act unless reasons are communicated. - Therefore, I direct the officer concerned to communicate the reasons on which he has formed his opinion - The petitioner would be entitled to take further objection and to explain before the officer that the material cannot form rational basis and/or nexus with the formation of belief.

Issues Involved:
1. Justiciability of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Requirement for the Assessing Officer to disclose reasons for reopening the assessment.
3. Validity of the notice under Section 148 in light of pending rectification proceedings under Section 154.
4. Applicability of the principle of estoppel or acquiescence.
5. Proper course of action following the issuance of a notice under Section 148.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justiciability of the Notice Issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act:
The learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the notice issued under Section 148 is not justiciable because it was issued in the exercise of statutory power, with the officer having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court should not interfere with the proceedings as all pre-conditions for issuance of the notice were fulfilled. However, the court clarified that in exercising extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will not interfere with any quasi-judicial proceedings unless such actions are initiated unlawfully. The court emphasized that the notice under Section 148 must be issued only when the conditions mentioned in Section 147 are satisfied, indicating lawful assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

2. Requirement for the Assessing Officer to Disclose Reasons for Reopening the Assessment:
The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer must disclose the reasons for reopening the assessment, as the existence of reasons is a sine qua non for issuing such notice. The court agreed, stating that when the assessee doubts the reasons for the belief of the Assessing Officer, it is the officer's obligation to divulge those reasons. The court rejected the argument that reasons should not be divulged for the interests of the Revenue, citing judicial pronouncements that reasons must have a rational connection with the materials for forming the belief. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments supporting this view, emphasizing that the reasons must be disclosed to prevent arbitrary and improper exercise of jurisdiction.

3. Validity of the Notice under Section 148 in Light of Pending Rectification Proceedings under Section 154:
The petitioner argued that since a notice of rectification under Section 154 was already issued and responded to, there should be no reason for reopening the assessment under Section 148. The court acknowledged this contention, noting that the legitimacy of issuing a notice under Section 148 while a rectification proceeding is pending must be examined through affidavits. The court held that the reopening notice could not be properly examined without such affidavits.

4. Applicability of the Principle of Estoppel or Acquiescence:
The learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the petitioner had acquiesced to the notice by submitting returns, thus estopping them from challenging the notice. The court disagreed, stating that the principle of estoppel or acquiescence does not apply against the provision of the Constitution or statute. The court noted that the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at the initial stage, and therefore, the principle of estoppel or acquiescence was not applicable.

5. Proper Course of Action Following the Issuance of a Notice under Section 148:
The court referenced a Supreme Court decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, which provided guidelines for actions following the issuance of a notice under Section 148. The court directed that the reasons for reopening must be communicated to the petitioner, who would then be entitled to file objections. The Assessing Officer must dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment. The court modified the interim order to ensure that reasons are communicated to the petitioner and that the officer decides on the objections before proceeding with the reassessment.

Conclusion:
The court directed the Assessing Officer to communicate the reasons for reopening the assessment to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to file objections, and the officer must address these objections before proceeding. The interim order was modified to reflect this directive, ensuring that no further steps are taken without the court's leave if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner. Affidavits were ordered to be filed within stipulated timelines, with liberty for mentioning for hearing.

← Previous Next →