9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 958 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that - The petitioner had not disclosed necessary particulars is without any basis. In any case while examining the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act what is required to be examined is as to whether the reasons recorded warrant holding of such belief so as to necessitate the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As noticed earlier the reasons recorded do not indicate that there was any material before the respondent to hold a belief so as to form an opinion or have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment so as to vest in the Assessing Officer jurisdiction to make assessment under section 147 of the Act. The impugned notice therefore cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment under Section 147. 2. Whether the petitioner disclosed full and true facts regarding the claim of depreciation on Non-Compete Territory Rights. 3. Validity of the Assessing Officer's belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the Notice Issued Under Section 148: The petitioner challenged the notice dated 30.03.2004 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 2002-03. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without proper grounds as the return of income had already been processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, and no scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) had taken place. The court noted that since only an intimation under Section 143(1) had been issued, the case was of assessment under Section 147 and not reassessment. The Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd., was referenced, which stated that in cases where only intimation under Section 143(1) was issued, the scope of challenge to a notice under Section 148 is limited. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer must have "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment to assume jurisdiction under Section 147. 2. Disclosure of Full and True Facts: The petitioner argued that it had made full and true disclosure of facts regarding Non-Compete Territory Rights in its return of income, as evidenced by the statement of total income and accompanying documents. The respondent, however, contended that the petitioner had not furnished sufficient particulars to verify the claim of depreciation on intangible assets. The court examined the return of income and supporting documents, including Annexure "C" and Schedule D to the balance sheet, and found that necessary particulars regarding Non-Compete Territory Rights were indeed disclosed. The court concluded that the petitioner's contention that it had disclosed all necessary particulars was valid. 3. Validity of the Assessing Officer's Belief: The court scrutinized whether the Assessing Officer had a valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The sole ground for reopening the assessment was the claim that depreciation was not available on Non-Compete Territory Rights. The court found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not indicate any material to support the belief that income had escaped assessment. The court held that the belief must be reasonable and based on relevant and material reasons. The court concluded that the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer was without basis, as the reasons recorded did not justify the issuance of the notice under Section 148. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notice dated 30.03.2004 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The court held that the notice was illegal and invalid as the requirements of Section 147 were not satisfied. The court emphasized that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not warrant the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and thus, the notice could not be sustained. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
|
