9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment. 2. Validity of deduction for "liability due to excise duty" allowed in the assessment. 3. Lack of disclosure of grounds for reopening assessment. 4. Requirement of valid information for reopening assessment under section 147(b). 5. Reliance on judgment of Madras High Court in justifying reassessment. 6. Quashing of notice under section 148 and consequential letter. Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenged a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to reassess the petitioners for the assessment year 1977-78. The petitioners had been previously assessed, including a deduction for "liability due to excise duty" amounting to Rs. 70,44,000. 2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner sought to reopen the assessment, questioning the deduction for excise duty based on specific notices and calculations. The petitioners were informed of the reassessment proceedings due to the claimed deduction, depreciation claims, and references to relevant legal decisions affecting the allowance of deductions. 3. The court noted that the notice under section 148 did not provide grounds for reopening the assessment, and there was no affidavit-in-reply from the Revenue, leaving the court unaware of the reasons behind the reassessment. Citing a previous judgment, the court held that failure to disclose reasons entitled the petitioner to succeed in challenging the reassessment. 4. The court emphasized the necessity of valid information for reopening assessments under section 147(b), highlighting that the assessing authority must base the belief of income escaping tax on such information. Inadequate disclosure of grounds or reasons for reassessment renders the process legally unsound. 5. The Revenue argued that the justification for reopening the assessment was the judgment of the Madras High Court in a specific case. However, the court found the subsequent letter inadequate in providing valid reasons for reassessment, as it was issued long after the initial notice and did not establish a direct link between the judgment and the reassessment. 6. Ultimately, the court quashed the notice under section 148 and the consequential letter, finding them invalid due to the lack of disclosed grounds for reassessment and insufficient justification based on the cited legal judgment. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
