2005 (8) TMI 99 - HC - Income Tax

Income Escaping assessment - Validity Of notice issued u/s 148 - contravention of section 153A - HELD THAT - It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned notice does not satisfy the requirement of section 148 ibid. On the other hand, it clearly appears that firstly the notice under section 148 could be issued for the assessment year 1997-98 being well within time. Secondly, the Assessing Officer was empowered and had an authority to issue such notice. Thirdly, the notice contains reasons as required under section 148 and which are supplied to the petitioner and lastly on the strength of the material collected in the raid conducted on October 8, 2003, in the premises of the petitioner a formation of belief for escape assessment could validly be formed for reopening of assessment made for the year 1997-98. Indeed as observed supra, the petitioner did not challenge the notice on any of these grounds which alone could be made the basis to challenge the impugned notice it being issued under section 148 ibid and hence, there is no difficulty in upholding the impugned notice which is rightly issued in conformity with the requirement of section 148 ibid. Thus, I do not find any merit in the writ. It is accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, all interim orders are vacated.

Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment of the assessment year 1997-98 based on the legality of the notice and jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment of the assessment year 1997-98. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued in contravention of section 153A of the Act, limiting the reassessment period to six years after a raid conducted in the petitioner's premises. The petitioner argued that the notice for the year 1997-98 was beyond the six-year period prescribed under section 153A, making it invalid.

2. The Assessing Officer justified the notice under section 148, and the case was heard by the High Court. The petitioner's counsel relied on legal precedents and interpretations of statutory provisions to argue that the notice lacked jurisdiction and should be set aside. The Revenue's counsel supported the issuance of the notice.

3. The High Court examined the legality of the notice under section 148 and the applicability of section 153A. The court held that the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the reassessment notice for the year 1997-98 under section 148. It emphasized that the conditions prescribed under section 148 needed to be satisfied for the notice to be valid, irrespective of the provisions of section 153A.

4. The court clarified that the assessment year 1997-98 did not fall within the six-year period specified in section 153A, limiting the reassessment scope under that section. It distinguished between the applicability of sections 148 and 153A, stating that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 for the specific assessment year.

5. The High Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's powers under section 148 were not curtailed unless the notice related to the six assessment years covered by section 153A. The court noted that the notice for the year 1997-98 satisfied the requirements of section 148, including the formation of a valid belief for reassessment based on material collected during a raid.

6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 for reassessment of the assessment year 1997-98. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments challenging the notice's legality and jurisdiction, concluding that the notice was issued in conformity with the provisions of section 148 of the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →