9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1081 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment -Whether AO not applied the mind and simply acted upon the information given by the ADI(Inv). Held that - It is not in dispute that the assessee filed return of income on 28.7.1987 in the office of the Income-tax Circle-II Kanpur. The re-assessment proceeding for the Assessment Year 1987-88 was initiated in 1997-98 and in between the period of 10 years the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer might have changed. The figure furnished in the return filed for the Assessment Year 1987-88 were acted upon even though the loans/other amounts said to have been stated in the return has been added. Tribunal is perfectly justified in quashing the order of reassessment proceedings as the action was mechanical in nature and without ascertaining as to whether the assessee had disclosed the factum of purchase of plot and cost of construction in the original return.
Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appeal in this case was filed challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee and quashing the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3)/148. The crux of the matter was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case based on information received from the Investigation Wing without proper application of mind. The assessee had disclosed all particulars in the original return, and it was argued that there was no need to reopen the assessment to verify the disclosed information. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both quashed the assessment proceedings, emphasizing the lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The facts leading to the appeal involved the assessment year 1987-88 where the assessee, an individual, had purchased a plot and constructed a house without disclosing the investment to the Department. The case was reopened under Section 147 based on information received, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. The assessee contended that the original return filed earlier should be considered as a response to the notice. The assessment was completed with additions to the income, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the lack of valid reopening of the assessment due to mechanical actions by the Assessing Officer. The arguments put forth by the Revenue were centered around the contention that the reassessment proceedings were quashed on technical grounds without proper justification. It was emphasized that the Assessing Officer had indeed checked the records and obtained necessary approvals before initiating the proceedings. However, the court noted that the Assessing Officer's actions were mechanical, and there was a lack of correlation between the information received and the original return filed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal's decisions were upheld, stating that the reassessment was not validly reopened due to the absence of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The court held that the reassessment proceedings were rightfully quashed as the actions taken were mechanical and lacked proper verification of the information disclosed in the original return. The judgment emphasized the importance of the Assessing Officer applying due diligence and not relying solely on external information without proper assessment of the facts presented by the assessee.
|
