2013 (3) TMI 411 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment - Period of Limitation - sec. 147 - Held that - The Tribunal without giving any finding on the controversy, simply declared that the notice for reopening which was issued beyond four years was barred by limitation.It was possible for the Tribunal to examine the facts on record and to come to a conclusion that the CIT A was incorrect in holding. The Tribunal committed grave error in declaring the notice of reopening invalid without coming to the conclusion that CIT A had erred in holding that there was failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the facts necessary for assessment Appeal of the Revenue is restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration - decided n favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment beyond four years.
2. Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
3. Tribunal's decision on the notice for reassessment being barred by limitation.

Issue 1: Validity of reopening assessment beyond four years:
The High Court dealt with the issue of the validity of reopening the assessment beyond four years in the case. The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's judgment, arguing that the Tribunal erred in holding the notice for reassessment as barred by limitation. The Court noted that the Tribunal did not reverse the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT [A] regarding the escapement of income due to the failure to disclose all material facts. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect as it did not address the crucial aspect of whether there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts. Consequently, the Court remanded the proceedings back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with the law.

Issue 2: Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessee's alleged failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The CIT [A] upheld the Assessing Officer's view that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to make full disclosure, leading to the escapement of income. The Court observed that the Tribunal did not provide a finding on this controversy and solely declared the notice for reopening as barred by limitation. The Court emphasized the importance of examining whether there was indeed a failure to disclose all material facts before concluding on the validity of the notice for reassessment.

Issue 3: Tribunal's decision on the notice for reassessment being barred by limitation:
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was barred by limitation since it was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Revenue contended that both the Assessing Officer and CIT [A] had found that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision lacked a proper examination of whether there was a failure to disclose material facts, and thus, remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order pertaining to the relevant assessment year and restored the appeal to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the validity of reopening the assessment beyond the prescribed time limit, the issue of failure to disclose all material facts, and the Tribunal's decision on the notice for reassessment being barred by limitation. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of whether there was a failure to disclose material facts before determining the validity of the reassessment notice. The case was remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration and disposal in line with legal provisions.