9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, beyond the six-month period. 2. Legality of the notice requiring the production of books of account for previous years beyond the immediate assessment year. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, beyond the six-month period: The petitioner challenged the notices dated October 27, 1992, and November 13, 1992, issued by the Income-tax Officer under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1990-91. The petitioner argued that the proviso to section 143(2) prior to its amendment on October 1, 1991, mandated a six-month period from the end of the month in which the return was filed within which the Assessing Officer could serve a notice. Since the return was filed on March 31, 1992, the notice under section 143(2) should have been issued by September 30, 1992. The notice dated October 27, 1992, was beyond this period and thus liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation. In response, the Income-tax Department contended that section 143(2) is procedural, and the law as it stood on the date of the notice (October 27, 1992) should apply. The amended proviso effective from October 1, 1991, extended the limitation period to 12 months. Therefore, the notice issued on October 27, 1992, was within the permissible period, as the return was filed on March 31, 1992, and the 12-month period would expire on March 31, 1993. The court noted that the proviso to section 143(2) before its amendment allowed a six-month period, but with effect from October 1, 1991, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, substituted this with a 12-month period. There was no indication that the amended proviso was not applicable to the assessment year 1990-91. The court held that since the return was filed after the amendment came into force, the 12-month limitation applied. The notice dated October 27, 1992, was within this period, and thus not barred by limitation. 2. Legality of the notice requiring the production of books of account for previous years beyond the immediate assessment year: The petitioner contended that the notice dated November 13, 1992, requiring the production of books of account for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 was unjustified. The petitioner argued that only the books of account for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1990-91 were necessary, and calling for books of earlier years amounted to a fishing and roving enquiry, indicating a prejudiced approach by the Assessing Officer. The Income-tax Department countered that under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer has the power to call for books of account relating to a period not more than three years prior to the previous year. The production of books for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 was necessary to verify the liabilities and income disclosed in the return for the assessment year 1990-91. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the Assessing Officer was within his jurisdiction to call for these books, and the notice did not constitute a fishing and roving enquiry. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notices dated October 27, 1992, and November 13, 1992. The petition was dismissed, and the interim order staying the notices was vacated. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs. Conclusion: The court upheld the validity of the notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1990-91, stating that the notices were within the permissible period and justified in requiring the production of books of account for the specified years.
|
