9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reassessment based on alleged escaped income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1988-89. Analysis: The petitioners sought to quash the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reassessment, arguing that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1988-89 had not escaped assessment. The dispute revolved around the additions made during the assessment of the petitioners' father, a partner in a firm, which were also linked to the petitioners. The Commissioner of Income-tax had made certain deletions and additions during the appeals process, affecting the petitioners' assessments. The Assessing Officer decided to reopen the assessment proceedings based on the belief that income had escaped assessment, leading to the issuance of notices under section 148 in 1991. The petitioners contended that their assessments for the relevant year had been completed with full and true disclosure of material facts, citing a relevant case law. However, the court noted that the reassessment was sought under section 147(b) of the Act, which allows for reassessment if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, regardless of the assessee's disclosure. The basis for the reassessment was a decision by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) setting aside certain additions made in the father's assessment. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments, stating that the reassessment fell within the ambit of section 147(b) and was not illegal. It was noted that certain amounts had not been assessed in the petitioners' hands, despite being shown in their returns, and the deletions made during the appeals process did not absolve them of assessment liability. The court upheld the legality of the notices under section 148 and the proposed reassessment proceedings, allowing the petitioners to benefit from findings in the father's appeals if relevant. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments, without imposing any costs. Judge AFTAB ALAM agreed with the judgment delivered by Judge SACHCHIDANAND JHA, and the petitions were accordingly dismissed.
|
