9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Reopening of assessments for multiple years under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Legality and jurisdiction of notices issued for reopening assessments. 3. Delay in approaching the court for challenging the notices. 4. Availability of statutory remedies for the petitioner. 5. Concerns regarding coerced payment of tax due if reassessments are completed. Analysis: The judgment addresses the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, being an assessee to income-tax. The petitioner had submitted returns for assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83, with assessments completed accordingly. The company engaged commission agents for product sales, and commission payments were debited in the commission account. Assessments for later years involved additions/disallowances, with a question arising on the deductibility of paid commissions. Despite agreeing to add back a portion of the commission, assessments disallowed the payments. The petitioner applied to the Settlement Commission, following which notices were issued under section 147 for reopening assessments for various years. The petitioner challenged the legality and jurisdiction of these notices, citing lack of income escape or full disclosure by the assessee as required conditions. The petitioner also highlighted the absence of necessary approvals for issuing the notices. The judgment emphasizes the court's reluctance to entertain the original petition due to significant delays in approaching the court. Notices for reopening assessments were served in 1990, yet the petition was filed in 1992, well beyond the conventional three-month period for such petitions. The court notes that the petitioner had ample time to challenge the proceedings earlier but chose to do so only at the last moment. Despite the petitioner's contentions, the court opines that the issues raised could be addressed before the assessing authority and through statutory remedies available under the Income-tax Act, including appeals and references. The court stresses that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court does not warrant interference, especially when adequate statutory remedies exist for addressing grievances. Furthermore, the judgment dismisses the petitioner's concerns regarding coerced payment of tax if reassessments are completed. Citing legal precedents, the court highlights that appellate authorities have the power to stay the collection of disputed demands pending appeals, ensuring a fair process. The court underscores that the appellate authority is expected to exercise this power reasonably and legally, providing reassurance that the petitioner's apprehensions are unfounded. Ultimately, the court concludes that the case does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies through objections and appeals as provided by the law.
|
