9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 623 - AT - Income TaxReassessment - Deduction u/s 80HHC - assessee raised issues on jurisdiction, which according to him goes to the root of the entire proceedings - It is now well established that the issue of jurisdiction of the authorities is fundamental and is like the root of the proceedings or matter - In a way that issue is always open to challenge even if the round is second or third. As long as the issue had not reached the finality, it is always open to question or challenge in judicial proceedings - Accordingly the said contention does not give any force to deviate from the view that is being expressed - The appeal will now go before the regular Bench for passing the order in conformity with the view of the majority
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Jurisdictional challenge in the second round of litigation. 3. Taxability of bank interest income and its impact on deduction under Section 80HHC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in this case was whether the assessee could challenge the validity of re-assessment proceedings before the Tribunal in the second round of litigation. The original assessment was completed on 31.3.2004, and the re-assessment was initiated under Section 147. The assessee argued that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid as the notice under Section 148 was issued when the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) had not expired. The Tribunal's first round of litigation did not address the validity of the re-assessment proceedings, focusing instead on the taxability of bank interest income. 2. Jurisdictional Challenge in the Second Round of Litigation: The Tribunal had to decide whether the assessee could raise a jurisdictional challenge in the second round of litigation. The Vice-President (V.P.) held that jurisdictional issues could be raised at any time, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in P.V. Doshi vs. CIT (113 ITR 22). The V.P. noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the jurisdictional challenge in the first round without substantive examination, as the assessee had not pressed the issue seriously. Therefore, the V.P. concluded that the matter had not reached finality and could be re-examined. Conversely, the Judicial Member (J.M.) believed that the jurisdictional issue had attained finality in the first round of litigation and should not be re-agitated. The J.M. relied on the decisions of M.S.P. Senthil Kumar v. CIT (241 ITR 502)(Mad.) and Murlidhar Bhagwandas v. CIT (234 ITR 548) (Bom.), arguing that the assessee's failure to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings in the first round precluded them from raising the issue again. 3. Taxability of Bank Interest Income and its Impact on Deduction under Section 80HHC: The original dispute involved whether the bank interest income should be treated as "income from other sources" or "business income," impacting the deduction available under Section 80HHC. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer had treated the bank interest as "income from other sources," reducing the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal in the first round remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to examine the purpose of the bank deposits and their nexus with the export business. Majority View and Conclusion: The Third Member agreed with the V.P., holding that the jurisdictional challenge could be raised in the second round of litigation. The Third Member emphasized that the issue had not reached finality in the first round, as the CIT(A) had not substantively examined the jurisdictional challenge. The Third Member also noted that shutting the doors on technical grounds would be against the spirit of justice, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. The Third Member further held that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid, as the time for issuing notice under Section 143(2) had not expired when the notice under Section 148 was issued. This conclusion was supported by the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd. Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the re-assessment proceedings were quashed. The case was remanded to the regular Bench for passing the order in conformity with the majority view.
|
