2010 (8) TMI 617 - HC - Income Tax

Addition - Reopening - Time barred - it is apparent that where an assessment under section 143(3) has been made, as in the present case, no action can be taken under section 147 of the Act, 1961 after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the assessee had omitted or failed either to make a return under section 139 of the Act, 1961 for he year or had failed to respond to a notice under section 142(1) or under section 148 of the Act, 1961 or had failed to disclose fully and truly all the facts necessary for his assessment - in the present case as none of the conditions precedent for invoking the first proviso to section 147 had arisen, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction under section 147 - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ITAT order under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1998-1999.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1998-1999. The respondent-assessee had filed its return declaring income, which was later reassessed, resulting in additional income being added. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, but ITAT allowed it. The main contention raised by the revenue was that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were not illegal, and there was no mere change of opinion. The court examined the issue of limitation under the first proviso to section 147 of the Act, which states that no action can be taken for reassessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless certain conditions are met. The court found that in this case, the reassessment was barred by limitation as the conditions specified in the proviso were not fulfilled. The court emphasized that since the assessment was already completed under section 143(3) and the notice for reopening was issued after the expiry of four years, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reassess. The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the case, and the appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the judgment dealt with the challenge to an ITAT order under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1998-1999. The court analyzed the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer and the issue of limitation under the first proviso to section 147. It was held that since the conditions for reassessment were not met, the reassessment was barred by limitation. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the case.