9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the service of notice under section 148 within the prescribed period of limitation. Analysis: The case involved a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary question referred to the court was whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the reassessment order due to the service of notice under section 148 being beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee, an individual, was initially assessed for the assessment year 1966-67, and the assessment was later reopened by the Income-tax Officer by issuing a notice under section 148. The Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 55,000 as unexplained investment in addition to the original assessed income of Rs. 30,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the reassessment, but the Tribunal set it aside based on the service of notice being beyond the eight-year limitation period. The court considered the contention that once a notice is issued within the specified period under section 149, the initiation of proceedings remains valid even if the notice is served beyond the limitation period. The argument relied on the Supreme Court decision in R. K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163. The court analyzed the distinction between the "issue of notice" and the "service of notice" under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that section 149 sets the limitation period for issuing the notice. It clarified that the jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment is established when the notice is issued within the limitation period, and service of notice is a prerequisite for making the reassessment order. In this case, the court found that the notice under section 148 was issued within the prescribed limitation period, and the reassessment order was made only after serving the notice on the assessee. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the court concluded that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was not barred by limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer. The court answered the reference question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue, and ruled that there would be no order as to costs.
|
