1992 (2) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Justification of reopening assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of converting reassessment proceedings from Section 147(a) to Section 147(b).
3. Legality of the Tribunal setting aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and directing reassessment under Section 144B without considering the limitation under Section 153.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Reopening Assessment under Section 147(b):

The Tribunal initially held that there was no case for reopening the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially held that the receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs for each assessment year was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. However, the successor Income-tax Officer believed that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of material facts. The Tribunal, after reconsideration, held that the reasons recorded on March 21, 1977, were insufficient to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b). The Tribunal noted that the question of whether the sale of standing trees constituted a capital receipt was not new to the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new information that justified reopening the assessment under Section 147(b) as the original assessment had already considered relevant judicial decisions.

2. Validity of Converting Reassessment Proceedings from Section 147(a) to Section 147(b):

The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated under Section 147(a) could not be validly converted into proceedings under Section 147(b). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had earlier cancelled the reassessment orders on the grounds that Section 144B was not complied with and that there was no failure by the assessee to disclose the primary facts. The Tribunal found that the successor Income-tax Officer's decision to initiate proceedings under Section 147(b) was based on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order in a different case, which did not constitute new information. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that no fresh notice under Section 148 was issued for the proceedings under Section 147(b), which was a jurisdictional requirement.

3. Legality of the Tribunal Setting Aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's Order and Directing Reassessment under Section 144B:

The Tribunal set aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and directed the Income-tax Officer to proceed afresh in accordance with Section 144B. However, the Tribunal did not consider the legal bar of limitation under Section 153. The Division Bench of the High Court in Sonai River Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT held that non-compliance with Section 144B was not a mere irregularity but a transgression of statutory provisions, warranting annulment of the assessment order. The High Court in the present case agreed with this view and held that the Tribunal's direction to proceed afresh under Section 144B was bad in law. The High Court also noted that reassessment at this stage would contravene the legislative mandate under Section 153, which provides a time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that:
(i) The Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the reopening of assessment under Section 147(b) after holding that there was no case for reopening under Section 147(a) or (b).
(ii) The Tribunal was not justified in converting the proceedings from Section 147(a) to Section 147(b).
(iii) The Tribunal erred in directing the Income-tax Officer to resort to Section 144B afresh without considering the limitation under Section 153.

All three reframed questions were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.