9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without prior assessment u/s 143(1)(a) or 143(3) and recording of reasons by the Assessing Officer.
Validity of Notice u/s 148: The petitioner sought to quash a notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending it was without jurisdiction due to lack of assessment u/s 143(1)(a) or 143(3) and absence of recorded reasons by the Assessing Officer. The respondent argued that the notice was valid under section 147 of the Act, even without prior assessment, if the Assessing Officer had reason to believe income had escaped assessment. The court noted that the Assessing Officer had indeed recorded reasons before issuing the notice, as evidenced by annexure-5, and upheld the validity of the notice u/s 148. Interpretation of Section 147 and Explanation 2(b): The court referred to Explanation 2(b) to section 147, which addresses situations where income has escaped assessment despite the filing of a return without assessment having been made. It highlighted that under section 147, the Assessing Officer can assess or reassess such income if it has escaped assessment, even if no formal assessment has been conducted u/s 143(1)(a) or 143(3). The court emphasized that the notice u/s 148, in this case, was in accordance with the provisions of section 147 and Explanation 2(b), thereby dismissing the petitioner's contentions. Conclusion: Based on the provisions of section 147 and Explanation 2(b) of the Income-tax Act, the court found the notice issued u/s 148 to be valid, even in the absence of a formal assessment u/s 143(1)(a) or 143(3). The court dismissed the application, ruling that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments, and upheld the legality of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer.
|
