9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Revenue in framing the assessments. 2. Additions based on the report of auditor Arjun K.S. Aiyar & Co. 3. Additions for rights acquisitions of rights shares. 4. Validity of the notice issued under section 148. 5. Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Revenue in framing the assessments: The appeals involved common issues similar to those in the assessment year 1990-91, which included the violation of principles of natural justice by the Revenue in framing the assessments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to redo the assessments for the relevant years, following the directions, guidelines, and observations from the assessment year 1990-91. 2. Additions based on the report of auditor Arjun K.S. Aiyar & Co.: The Tribunal noted that the additions based on the auditor's report were contested as unjustified. Given the identical nature of facts and circumstances to the previous assessment year, the Tribunal directed the AO to reassess these additions, adhering to the previous guidelines and observations. 3. Additions for rights acquisitions of rights shares: Similar to the other common issues, the additions concerning the acquisition of rights shares were to be reassessed by the AO, following the established directions from the earlier assessment year. 4. Validity of the notice issued under section 148: The appellants argued that the notice issued under section 148 was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The Tribunal examined the language of section 148(1), which requires the AO to serve a notice allowing a period "not being less than thirty days" for the assessee to furnish a return. The notice in question directed the assessee to file the return "within thirty days," which was deemed contradictory to the statutory requirement. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court decision in Commissioner v. Ekbal & Co., which held that "not less than thirty days" and "within thirty days" do not convey the same meaning, and a notice curtailing the time to "within thirty days" is invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal found the notice invalid and quashed all subsequent reassessment proceedings. 5. Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The appellants raised additional grounds challenging the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B, citing a Special Court Judge's order that only interest under section 234A could be levied. The Tribunal acknowledged these as pure questions of law but did not express an opinion on them, as the reassessment proceedings were already quashed due to the invalid notice. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part, with the reassessments quashed due to the invalidity of the notice under section 148, rendering the issues of interest under sections 234A and 234B academic. The AO was directed to redo the assessments for the relevant years, following the established guidelines and observations from the previous assessment year.
|
