2012 (8) TMI 613 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment proceedings Held that - Each assessment year is taken to be an independent unit of assessment and the provisions of the Act applies separately, even where there has been escapement of income, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue separate notice for each assessment year - Assessing Officer in the present case admittedly has not issued separate notice under section 148 of the Act and instead had issued a composite notice which does not meet the requirement of section 148 of the Act - entire reassessment proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of a single notice issued under section 148 for four assessment years.
2. Treatment of a letter as a notice under section 143(2) of the Act.
3. Validity of passing an assessment order under section 143(3) without issuing notice under section 142(1) or 143(2) subsequent to the notice issued under section 148.
4. Taxability of protshahan money.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the validity of a single notice issued under section 148 for four assessment years. The appellant argued that each assessment year is an independent unit, requiring separate notices. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that under the Act, each assessment year is treated independently. The court found that the Assessing Officer's failure to issue separate notices for each year rendered the reassessment proceedings without jurisdiction.

2. The next issue revolved around treating a letter as a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The appellant contested the genuineness of the notice, claiming that without it, the proceedings were vitiated. However, the court did not delve into this matter as the case was decided on the first point regarding the validity of the notice under section 148.

3. The question of passing an assessment order under section 143(3) without issuing notices under section 142(1) or 143(2) subsequent to the notice under section 148 was raised. The court did not address this issue due to the finding on the first point regarding the absence of separate notices for each assessment year.

4. Lastly, the issue of the taxability of protshahan money was raised but was not discussed as the appeal succeeded based on the lack of separate notices under section 148. The court did not delve into other questions raised by the parties, concluding that the appeal succeeded solely on the jurisdictional issue.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the appellant succeeded on the grounds of the non-issuance of separate notices under section 148 for each assessment year, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. The court did not address the other issues raised, as the appeal succeeded on this primary point alone.