9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of the amended section 147 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax authorities to reopen assessments after four years. 4. Impact of the Tribunal's decision in Boudier Christian's case on the petitioner's case. 5. Availability of alternative remedy for the petitioner. Summary of Judgment: 1. Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner challenged the notice dated November 20, 1998, issued u/s 148 for the assessment year 1988-89, arguing that it was issued arbitrarily and did not meet the conditions of section 147. The court found that the petitioner had fully disclosed all material facts in the original return, and the notice was issued merely due to a change of opinion by the Department, which is not valid for reopening assessments. 2. Applicability of the amended section 147 of the Income-tax Act: The court noted that the new section 147, effective from April 1, 1989, requires the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court held that the new section 147 applies to the case, and since the petitioner had made full disclosures, the notice was barred by limitation. 3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax authorities to reopen assessments after four years: The court emphasized the proviso to section 147, which bars reopening assessments after four years unless there is a failure to disclose material facts by the assessee. Since the petitioner had disclosed all necessary facts, the court ruled that the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond the permissible period and was thus invalid. 4. Impact of the Tribunal's decision in Boudier Christian's case on the petitioner's case: The Department argued that the Tribunal's decision in Boudier Christian's case justified the reassessment. However, the court found that the decision pertained to the taxability of an expatriate employee's income and not the corporate income of the petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision did not provide a valid basis for reopening the petitioner's assessment. 5. Availability of alternative remedy for the petitioner: The court rejected the Department's argument that the petitioner should seek alternative remedies before the income-tax authorities. It held that since the notice u/s 148 was without jurisdiction, the petitioner was not required to pursue alternative remedies. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notices, holding that the notices were issued without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation. The court emphasized that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law.
|
