9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 890 - HC - Income TaxApplications for rectification of the errors - Re-opening of the assessments Held that - when Ext. P3 order was passed by the Tribunal, the remand in respect of the assessment years/orders for 1998-99 to 2000-01 was for want of necessary materials , but for which, the Tribunal would have passed similar orders as in the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. This being the position, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has taken a U turn, showing some or other inconsistency with regard to the earlier order (Ext.P3), while passing Ext. P9/P10 or that the matter ought to have been referred to a larger Bench for consideration, There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the records. Writ Petition dismissed accordingly
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act for re-opening assessments, validity of reasons for re-opening assessments, consideration of materials for different assessment years, rectification petitions, application of legal precedents, interpretation of law declared by the Apex Court. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contested the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the validity of re-opening assessments under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal initially set aside the re-opened assessment for the year 1996-97, citing a lack of concrete materials and a fishing enquiry by the Assessing Officer. Similar reasons were found for the assessment year 1997-98, leading to interference by the Tribunal. However, for subsequent years, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax for separate consideration due to insufficient materials. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, upon re-consideration, found the reasons for re-opening assessments for the years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 identical to the earlier years and deemed them invalid. The petitioner's appeals were allowed based on this finding, prompting the Revenue to file appeals before the ITAT (Exts.P5 to P7). The ITAT, after considering the Apex Court's decision in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case, upheld the re-opening of assessments and remanded the matter for further consideration by the Commissioner. 3. The petitioner argued that the ITAT's decision in the subsequent years' assessments contradicted its earlier findings for the initial years, citing settled legal principles. The ITAT justified its decision by stating that the lack of materials necessitated a re-consideration of subsequent years' assessments, leading to a different outcome based on the same reasons for re-opening. 4. The respondents defended the ITAT's actions, emphasizing the absence of a clear mistake for invoking rectification under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. They contended that the ITAT's reconsideration was warranted due to the unavailability of the legal precedent at the time of the initial orders. The respondents also argued against the rectification petitions, equating them to a review of the ITAT's orders, which the Tribunal lacked the power to conduct. 5. The Court analyzed the entire sequence of events, emphasizing that the ITAT's decisions were based on the available materials and legal interpretations at each stage. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the records to justify rectification under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. The petitioner's contention of inconsistency in the ITAT's orders was dismissed, and the Court suggested further appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act as the appropriate remedy if aggrieved by the ITAT's decisions. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the ITAT's decisions and emphasizing the need for proper legal remedies in case of dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's orders.
|
