9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 523 - HC - Income TaxQuashing the Assessment u/s 147/143 (3) by Tribunal - no return was filed by assessee - Held that - Tribunal in setting-aside the assessment and penalty order has adopted a hyper-technical approach in holding that the material which existed and which was relied upon by the AO were insufficient to be described as reasons to believe u/s 147 - As is evident the assessee had not filed any return for the succeeding year but had received a sum in excess of Rs.100 crores as consideration for transfer of business and as per Explanation 2(a) to Section 47 non-filing of return under certain circumstances could itself led to inference of escaped income - once the AO was satisfied about the income escapement no further investigation as to what was the ground for the assessee to have not filed the return. Therefore the Tribunal ought not to have set-aside the assessment and penalty order in this case on such narrow reasoning - matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the reassessment and the penalty appeals - against assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of quashing the Assessment under section 147/143 (3) by ITAT. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a batch of appeals where the main issue was whether the ITAT erred in quashing the Assessment under section 147/143 (3) and holding the initiation as invalid. The appellant, a technology company, had filed its return for the assessment year 2000-01 but failed to do so for the succeeding year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to the company's failure to disclose a substantial business transaction. The ITAT, in its order, found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer lacked a rational nexus between the belief of income escapement and the actual assessment. The ITAT concluded that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid as it did not meet the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the lack of a clear connection between the reasons recorded and the belief of income escapement. It highlighted that the Assessing Officer's conclusions were based on assumptions and surmises rather than concrete evidence of assessable income. The ITAT emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to show a logical process of reasoning leading to the belief that income had escaped assessment. As a result, the ITAT deemed the assessment completed under Section 147/143 (3) as invalid and ordered its quashing, allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee. The High Court, upon review, criticized the ITAT's hyper-technical approach in setting aside the assessment and penalty orders. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's narrow interpretation of the facts, noting that the non-filing of a return under certain circumstances could itself indicate income escapement as per Explanation 2(a) to Section 147. The Court held that the Tribunal had set an unreasonably high threshold for the Assessing Officer, especially considering the substantial amount received by the assessee and the non-filing of the return. The Court opined that delving into the reasons for not filing the return would amount to scrutinizing the case's merits, which was beyond the scope of the Assessing Officer's initial determination. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on the reassessment and penalty appeals based on merits and in accordance with the law.
|
