2000 (5) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice of reassessment u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Fulfillment of conditions u/s 147 for reopening the assessment.
3. Disclosure of material facts by the assessee.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the respondent to reopen the assessment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the notice of reassessment u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The writ petitioner challenged the notice of reassessment dated March 28, 2000, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 148 for the assessment year 1993-94. The court examined whether the conditions for issuing such a notice were met, specifically if there was a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment or if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Issue 2: Fulfillment of conditions u/s 147 for reopening the assessment
The court noted that u/s 147, the assessment could only be reopened if either income had escaped assessment or there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The court found that the customs duty of Rs. 39,39,096 paid in advance during the financial year 1992-93 was disclosed by the petitioner and considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment.

Issue 3: Disclosure of material facts by the assessee
The petitioner provided evidence, including a supplementary affidavit and statements, showing that all material facts, including the customs duty paid in advance, were disclosed. The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed all primary facts necessary for the assessment, and there was no omission or failure on their part.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction and authority of the respondent to reopen the assessment
The court held that the issue of customs duty paid in advance had already been considered by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, the respondent had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the same grounds. The court cited various judgments supporting the principle that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice u/s 148 was violative of law as the conditions u/s 147 were not met. The notice of reassessment dated March 28, 2000, was quashed. No order was passed as to costs. The court directed that certified copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties within seven days.