9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 52 - HC - Income TaxJurisdiction of AO to issue notice u/s 148 Assessee contended that notice under section 148 of the Act issued on the basis of the retracted statements is bad in law - Event when assessee can challenge the jurisdiction of AO for issuing issue - Held that - The reasons recorded by the AO are sufficient to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act - in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - AO has no power to review - he has the power to reassess - But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place - the only remedy open to the assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the detailed reasons recorded by the AO, while dealing with all objections/contentions urged on behalf of the assessee including the question of jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act, is to file an appeal after the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act - the AO did follow the due procedure and recorded sufficient reasons All the contentions of assessee kept open to be raised before AO - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. 3. Procedural compliance by the Assessing Officer. 4. Adequacy of reasons for reopening the assessment. 5. Whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The appellant-assessee challenged the notice issued under Section 148, arguing it was without jurisdiction. The court examined whether the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The court found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, based on the survey conducted and the statements obtained, were sufficient to justify the issuance of the notice under Section 148. The court held that the notice was within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. 2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 147 of the Act: The appellant-assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on retracted statements. The court noted that the reassessment was initiated based on substantial evidence, including the transfer of business and machinery from M/s. Fibers and Fabrics International P. Ltd. (FFIPL) to the appellant-assessee. The court upheld the reassessment proceedings, emphasizing that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were neither arbitrary nor irrational. 3. Procedural Compliance by the Assessing Officer: The appellant-assessee argued that the Assessing Officer did not follow the proper procedure, particularly in granting a second opportunity to improve the reasons for reopening the assessment. The court found that the Assessing Officer had followed due procedure by considering the objections raised by the appellant-assessee and passing a detailed order on August 2, 2013. The court held that the procedural compliance by the Assessing Officer was adequate and in accordance with the law. 4. Adequacy of Reasons for Reopening the Assessment: The court examined the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. It was observed that the systematic transfer of business and machinery from FFIPL to the appellant-assessee indicated a reconstruction of business, making the appellant-assessee ineligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The court found a rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief that income had escaped assessment, thereby justifying the reopening of the assessment. 5. Whether the High Court's Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Can Be Invoked: The court addressed whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked to challenge the reassessment proceedings. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, which held that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an adequate statutory remedy is available. The court concluded that the appellant-assessee should pursue the statutory appeal process rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the detailed reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and the procedural compliance justified the dismissal of the writ petition. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 was within jurisdiction, the reassessment proceedings were valid, and the Assessing Officer had followed due procedure. The court also ruled that the appellant-assessee should seek remedy through the statutory appeal process rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court kept open all contentions on the merits to be raised before the Assessing Officer and hoped that the case would be decided in accordance with the law.
|
