9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding reopening of assessments. 2. Validity of notice under section 148 issued by the Assessing Officer. 3. Jurisdiction of the authority to proceed with the assessment. 4. Bar on assessment due to limitation under section 153(1)(c). 5. Consideration of facts and evidence in determining questions of law. 6. Applicability of legal precedents in cases involving limitation issues. Analysis: The judgment pertains to reference applications filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking direction to state cases and refer a common question of law related to the reopening of assessments under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue arose from the Assessing Officer serving notice under section 148 without processing the return filed by the assessee, leading to a challenge on the validity of the notice. The appellate authority found the notice invalid as the return was filed under section 139(4) and held the assessment barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that no assessment could be made after one year from the date of return filing. The High Court dismissed the reference applications, stating that the conclusion on limitation did not raise any question of law, as it was based on factual appreciation. The Tribunal's findings were deemed correct, and no evidence was presented to suggest otherwise. The judgment highlighted the principle that no reappraisal of evidence can be made when the conclusion is based on the issue of limitation. Citing the case of Dudh Nath Pandey v. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali, it was noted that findings on limitation, based on an appraisal of evidence, are considered findings of fact that cannot be overturned unless shown to be perverse. The High Court reiterated that findings of fact, not proven to be perverse or erroneous, do not give rise to questions of law, as established in previous cases like CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons. Therefore, the High Court rejected the reference applications, emphasizing that the proposed question was a result of factual appreciation that was not shown to be incorrect or unreasonable. In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the issues surrounding the reopening of assessments, validity of notices under section 148, jurisdiction of the authority, and limitations on assessments were all intricately linked to factual findings rather than legal questions. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of factual accuracy and adherence to legal precedents in matters involving limitations and assessments under the Income-tax Act, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the reference applications without costs.
|
