9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions of sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the reassessment of income due to the disallowance of investment allowance claimed by the assessee based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision. Relevant details for each issue: 1. Reopening of Assessment u/s 147 of the Act: The respondent-assessee claimed investment allowance on drilling rigs, which was initially allowed in the assessment year 1985-86 but later withdrawn due to a Supreme Court decision. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 to reopen the case under section 147, leading to reassessment and withdrawal of the investment allowance. The Appellate Commissioner held that the notice under section 147 was not valid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts during the original assessment. 2. Interpretation of Section 147(b) - Information as to Relevant Judicial Decision: The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts by claiming the investment allowance, which was disallowed by law. They argued that the subsequent Supreme Court decision should be considered as "information" under section 147(b) justifying the reassessment. However, the respondent-assessee argued that the reassessment after four years without any mention of failure to disclose material facts was not valid. They relied on previous court judgments emphasizing the duty of the assessee to disclose primary facts only. 3. Time Limit for Notice u/r 149: The judgment highlighted the time limit for issuing a notice under section 148, which is four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in cases falling under section 147(b). The court emphasized the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the need to avoid reactivating stale issues beyond a certain point, citing the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC). 4. Decision and Dismissal of Appeals: The court concluded that the reassessment notice served in February 1995 was not valid as it exceeded the four-year time limit specified under section 149. As a result, both appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, with the court finding no substantial question of law involved in the case. This judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions governing income reassessment, the duty of the assessee to disclose material facts, and the limitations on issuing reassessment notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
