2010 (2) TMI 961 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment - Notice u/s 148 - held that - In the facts of the case that is not so as there was no evidence required with regard to the disclosure made for transfer of an undertaking and if any clarification was required thereof with regard to any bifurcation or classification the Assessing Officer could have called for the said clarification once the asses-see had made the declaration. Therefore in the facts of this case it cannot be said that after such disclosure the assessing authority may not have noticed the necessary material and relevant facts. Further it cannot be said that there was no disclosure of primary facts which has caused the escapement of the income.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Limitation period for issuing the notice under section 148.
3. Alleged failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts by the petitioner.
4. Availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, seeking its quashing on the grounds that it was beyond the prescribed limitation period and that there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The court noted that the petitioner had submitted all necessary documents, including audited accounts and notes, which disclosed the transfer of an undertaking. The court found that the Assessing Officer had the opportunity to verify these details but failed to do so. Therefore, the court concluded that the notice under section 148 was invalid as it did not meet the statutory requirements for reopening the assessment after four years.

2. Limitation period for issuing the notice under section 148:
The petitioner argued that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the four-year limitation period as provided in the proviso to section 147 of the Act. The court emphasized that, normally, an assessment under section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years unless there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The court found that the petitioner had disclosed all necessary facts, and thus, the notice issued after four years was beyond the permissible limitation period and invalid.

3. Alleged failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts by the petitioner:
The respondent contended that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which led to the escapement of income. The court examined the petitioner's submissions, including the audited accounts and notes, and found that the petitioner had adequately disclosed the transfer of an undertaking and the related financial details. The court held that the petitioner had not withheld any material facts, and the failure to uncover any embedded material was the responsibility of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

4. Availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner:
The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and that the petition should not be entertained. The court rejected this argument, stating that if the exercise of jurisdiction under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 were bad in law, the availability of an alternative remedy would not bar the petitioner from invoking the court's jurisdiction. The court held that relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy would validate the invalid notice, which was not acceptable.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The court ruled that the notice was issued beyond the permissible limitation period and that there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy did not bar the petitioner from challenging the invalid notice.

← Previous Next →