1994 (3) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Alternate Remedy, Assessment Notice, Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment Proceedings

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with the pre-conditions for initiating proceedings under section 147.
3. Adequacy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessments.
4. Applicability of section 150 of the Income-tax Act.
5. Availability and efficacy of alternative remedies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 Read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner, a firm carrying on contract business, challenged the notices issued under section 148 read with section 147 for reopening assessments for the years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86. The petitioner contended that the notices were issued illegally and without jurisdiction as the pre-conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. The court noted that the notices were issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment years, invoking section 147(a) of the Act.

2. Compliance with the Pre-conditions for Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147:

The court highlighted the conditions that must be satisfied for a valid reassessment under sections 147 and 148:
- There must be escapement of chargeable income.
- The Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that such escapement is due to the assessee's failure to file a return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
- The reasons for the belief must be recorded.
- The notice must be issued within the time limit specified in section 149 read with section 151.

The petitioner argued that all necessary books of account were maintained, and returns were filed along with audited financial statements, which were scrutinized and accepted by the Income-tax Officer under the Amnesty Scheme. The court found that the petitioner had disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessments, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

3. Adequacy of the Reasons Recorded by the Assessing Officer for Reopening the Assessments:

The Revenue contended that during the assessment for the year 1987-88, an enquiry revealed that the seven creditors from whom the petitioner obtained loans were non-existent. However, the court observed that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not indicate any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts. The court emphasized that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material and the belief of income escapement, which was absent in this case.

4. Applicability of Section 150 of the Income-tax Act:

The Revenue argued that the appellate order for the year 1987-88 directed further investigation, and hence, section 150 applied, negating the bar of limitation. The court rejected this argument, noting that the appellate order was dated August 10, 1992, while the notice under section 148 was issued on March 21, 1991. Thus, the notice could not have been issued to give effect to the appellate order.

5. Availability and Efficacy of Alternative Remedies:

The Revenue suggested that the petitioner could avail alternative remedies through statutory appeals and references. However, the court held that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental, and the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the court from issuing writs to provide effective relief. The court found that the conditions for initiating proceedings under section 147 were not met, rendering the notices illegal and without jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the notices issued under section 148 read with section 147 for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86, declaring them illegal and without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →