9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act and issuance of notices under section 148 based on approval of Joint Commissioner instead of the Board. Analysis: The petitioner contested the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act and the issuance of notices under section 148, arguing that the Assessing Officer wrongly obtained approval from the Joint Commissioner instead of the Board, as required by the law in 1988 for the assessment year 1988-89. The petitioner received a notice under section 148, informing about the reassessment of income for 1988-89. The conditions for issuing a notice under section 148 are outlined in section 151 of the Act, which was amended in 1987. The amended section 151 mandates approval of the Joint Commissioner for reassessment beyond four years of the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act. The petitioner's contention was that the approval of the Joint Commissioner was invalid, citing the law applicable prior to the 1987 amendment. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that procedural requirements, including obtaining superior officer approval, are governed by the law as it stands when initiating reassessment proceedings, not when the original assessment order was passed. The court clarified that the decision to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147 is made after the original assessment order is passed, and the law in effect at that time governs the procedural requirements. The timing of the decision to reopen assessment, not the original assessment year, determines the applicable law. Therefore, the law at the time of deciding to initiate reassessment governs the procedural steps, such as obtaining approval from the Joint Commissioner. The court dismissed the petition, highlighting that the law applicable at the time of the decision to reopen assessment is crucial, rendering the petitioner's argument irrelevant to the case. The judgment was delivered by V. K. Gupta C.J., with M.Y. Eqbal concurring. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal intricacies surrounding the initiation of proceedings under the Income-tax Act and the significance of complying with procedural requirements as per the prevailing law at the time of decision-making.
|
