2002 (9) TMI 95 - HC - Income Tax

In my view, this is one of the exceptional cases where this court should exercise its power under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said notice as I am of the opinion that on the face of the recorded reasons palpably the initiation of the proceedings are wholly unwarranted and the reasons recorded do not satisfy the requirements of the law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 147. The entire course Of reassessment proceedings will be an exercise in futility. It has been observed by the apex court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. s case, that the High Courts have ample powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India, and are in duty bound thereunder, to issue such appropriate orders or directions as are necessary in order to prevent persons from being subjected to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment by an executive authority acting without jurisdiction. The alternative remedies that are provided by the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot always be a sufficient reason for refusing quick relief in a fit and proper case.

Issues Involved: Legality of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Notices Issued under Section 148:
The writ petitioner, a public limited company engaged in travel agency and tour operation businesses, questioned the legality of three notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming that there was no omission or failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The petitioner had duly filed returns for the relevant assessment years, along with certificates from chartered accountants certifying the correctness of the claimed deductions under section 80HHD.

2. Compliance with Section 80HHD:
Section 80HHD allows deductions for earnings in convertible foreign exchange for businesses of hotels or tour operators, provided the assessee furnishes a report from an accountant certifying the correctness of the deduction. The petitioner complied with this requirement by filing the necessary certificates from chartered accountants for each assessment year.

3. Assessing Officer's Authority and Jurisdiction:
The Assessing Officer initially allowed the deductions under section 80HHD. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax later issued notices under section 148, alleging escapement of assessment due to incorrect calculation of total receipts for claiming deductions. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer had all primary facts at the time of the original assessment and that the reassessment notices were merely a change of opinion, which is not permissible under section 147.

4. Conditions Precedent for Reopening Assessments:
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that for reopening assessments under section 147, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In this case, the court found that the petitioner had disclosed all primary facts and that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion rather than any new information or failure to disclose material facts.

5. Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles:
The judgment referenced several judicial precedents, including Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO, and Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO, emphasizing that the duty of the assessee is to disclose primary facts and that the Assessing Officer must draw inferences from these facts. The court reiterated that reopening assessments based on a change of opinion is not permissible.

6. Exercise of Power under Article 226:
The court exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notices, citing that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was unwarranted and would lead to unnecessary harassment. The court emphasized that alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act are not always sufficient, and quick relief is necessary in fit and proper cases to prevent lengthy and unjustified proceedings.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the three notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with all related proceedings, were quashed. The court directed the parties to bear their respective costs and provided for the issuance of a certified copy of the judgment within seven days upon request.

← Previous Next →