2002 (3) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment after four years u/s 143(3) read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Limitation period for issuing notice u/s 148.
3. Applicability of the proviso to section 147 regarding failure to disclose material facts.

Summary:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment:
The Tribunal re-framed the question for the court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the reopening of the assessment after a lapse of four years u/s 143(3) read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid and illegal and therefore the addition made in the reassessment cannot be confirmed?" The court noted that the Income-tax Officer was aware of the raid conducted by the sales tax authorities and the suppressed income during the original assessment. The Tribunal had initially set aside the addition of Rs.41,30,060, and the High Court later remitted the matter for fresh disposal.

2. Limitation Period for Issuing Notice:
The court observed that the notice u/s 148 was issued on August 3, 1992, which was beyond the four-year limitation period ending on March 31, 1991. The material part of section 147 states that no proceedings can be initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the proviso applies.

3. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 147:
The proviso to section 147 allows reopening after four years if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The court found that the Income-tax Officer had all the material facts before him during the original assessment, and any wrong inference drawn was not due to the assessee's failure to disclose. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO, which held that if the Income-tax Officer had all the material facts and drew a wrong inference, it cannot be treated as the assessee's default.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment was barred by limitation and that the proviso to section 147 did not apply. The Tribunal's view that the proceedings for reopening were barred by limitation was upheld, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.