9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1497 - HC - Income TaxRe-opening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act Held that - Notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on March 30 2000 in relation to the assessment year 1989-90 it has been issued after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - in the light of the proviso to section 147 of the Act in case where assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Act no action can be taken under section 147 unless income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year. There is not even a whisper to the effect that income has escaped assessment on account of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment - the requirements of the proviso to section 147 of the Act are not satisfied - in the absence of any satisfaction having been recorded by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is invalid - The notice under section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Challenging notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment for the assessment year 1989-90. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the notice dated March 30, 2000, issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1989-90. The petitioner's income was initially declared at Rs. 4,90,211 for the said assessment year, and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act on January 22, 1991, assessing a much higher income. Subsequently, the petitioner provided clarifications to issues raised by the audit wing of the Department. Despite this, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated March 30, 2000, under section 148 of the Act, leading to the petitioner approaching the High Court through the present petition. The petitioner contended that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond the permissible period of four years from the end of the assessment year. It was argued that for reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Act, income chargeable to tax must have escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to make a return or disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The petitioner asserted that in this case, there was no failure on their part to disclose all material facts required for assessment. The respondent, on the other hand, relied on averments in an affidavit to support their position. The High Court analyzed the legal provisions and the facts of the case. It was observed that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year. As per the proviso to section 147 of the Act, in cases where assessment has been done under section 143(3), action under section 147 can only be taken if income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. However, in this case, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not indicate any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose necessary facts. The court noted that there was no allegation or indication of such failure in the respondent's submissions as well. Consequently, the High Court held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act was invalid, and the impugned notice under section 148 could not be sustained. Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the notice dated March 30, 2000, and set it aside, ruling in favor of the petitioner with no order as to costs.
|
