1996 (8) TMI 78 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before concluding proceedings under section 143(3).

Analysis:
The assessees filed petitions under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution directly in the High Court challenging notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Notices were issued under section 143(2) of the Act after the assessees filed returns for the assessment year 1992-93. Subsequently, notices under section 148 of the Act were issued based on materials seized during a search at the petitioners' premises, indicating grounds for initiating proceedings under section 147. The assessees argued that initiating proceedings under section 147 before concluding proceedings under section 143(3) was impermissible. They relied on various court decisions predating April 1, 1989, which were deemed irrelevant by the High Court due to the subsequent amendment to section 147.

The assessees contended that Explanation 2(b) to section 147 should only apply to cases where returns were processed and accepted under section 143(1)(a), not to cases picked up for scrutiny under section 143(3). They argued that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes were binding on Revenue authorities and should guide interpretation of the Act and Rules. However, the Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that circulars cannot override the provisions of the Act. After hearing both parties and reviewing the submissions, the High Court rejected the petitioners' arguments. The court found no basis for giving a restricted meaning to the provisions of the Act based on the explanatory note presented before Parliament during the amendment of section 147.

The High Court noted that the explanatory note did not support the petitioners' arguments, as it did not limit the application of Explanation 2(b) to non-scrutiny cases. The court emphasized that the explanatory note aimed to simplify assessment procedures, without excluding cases picked up for scrutiny. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications, finding no merit in the petitioners' contentions.