9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1043 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that - Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional issue and can be raised at any stage of proceedings. In the present case, validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 had been raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) and also raised before the Tribunal. It is open to the assessee to urge the different facets of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings and it cannot be confined only to that facet which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). The decision cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly lay down the proposition that legal question can be raised at the stage of appeal, even without a ground being urged in the grounds of appeal. The decision in the case of Sankeshwar Printer Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (11) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court binding on this Tribunal is therefore directly applicable to the present case. As far as the decision of the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tollaram Hassomal (2006 (3) TMI 136 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court ) is concerned, it is not the decision of jurisdictional High Court and is contrary to the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court viz., Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and also contrary to the decision of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court ). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in this miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue and accordingly the same is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal. Point raised by Revenue regarding remanding the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision afresh. Applicability of legal questions raised at the stage of appeal without being a ground. Dismissal of the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue. Analysis: The judgment involves a miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue seeking rectification of errors in the Tribunal's order dated 23.8.2013. The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s. 148 of the Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, before the Tribunal, the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 was contested by the assessee based on the absence of additions related to the escaped income item mentioned in the reasons recorded. The Tribunal found the reassessment proceedings invalid in this regard. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal should have remanded the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision instead of deciding it directly. Citing a judgment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Revenue argued for a different approach. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue's argument was not raised during the appeal hearing, leading to the dismissal of the petition on this ground alone. The Tribunal emphasized that the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any stage. The assessee's right to challenge various aspects of this validity was supported by legal precedents, including a decision by the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal highlighted that legal questions can be raised at the appeal stage without being formal grounds, as established in relevant case law. Regarding the Revenue's reliance on the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, the Tribunal noted that it contradicted the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court. Given the absence of merit in the Revenue's petition, it was dismissed, affirming the assessee's position on the validity of the reassessment proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous petition, upholding the assessee's challenge to the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdictional issues and the right to raise legal questions during the appeal stage, even without formal grounds, as supported by relevant legal precedents.
|
