2015 (7) TMI 399 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that - Assessing Officer is mandated to decide the objection to the notice under sec. 148 of the Act and supply or communicate it to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee gets an opportunity to challenge the order in a writ petition. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer may pass the reassessment order. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to decide the objection raised against notice under sec. 148 by a composite assessment order. Thus, the Assessing Officer was required to first decide the objection of the assessee filed under sec. 148 and serve a copy of the order on assessee. And after giving some reasonable time to the assessee for challenging his order, it is open to him to pass an assessment order. Since such compliance has not been made by the Assessing Officer in the present case, we hold the impugned assessment order dated 03.10.2008 as not valid and the same is held as void ab initio. See G.K.N. Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Validity of re-opening assessment for assessment year 1997-98 under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Inclusion of a specific amount in taxable income.
3. Validity of reassessment due to notice u/s. 148 being issued twice for the same assessment year.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice and contemporary legal standards.

Issue 1: Validity of Re-opening Assessment:
The appellant challenged the first appellate order, questioning the re-opening of assessment for the assessment year 1997-98 under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the notice u/s. 148 was time-barred as the interest for the said assessment year was below the threshold. The appellant contended that all relevant facts were disclosed in the original return, and the re-opening was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted the appellant's withdrawal of certain grounds. The Tribunal considered arguments regarding compliance with the directions of the ITAT in disposing of objections to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice u/s. 148. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in G.K.N. Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO and held that the Assessing Officer must first decide objections raised by the assessee before passing a reassessment order. As the Assessing Officer failed to comply with this requirement, the Tribunal declared the assessment order as void ab initio, quashing it.

Issue 2: Inclusion of Specific Amount in Taxable Income:
The appellant contested the inclusion of a specific amount in the taxable income, arguing that it was fully exempt from tax. However, the Tribunal's decision did not specifically address this issue in the judgment provided.

Issue 3: Validity of Reassessment Due to Duplicate Notice u/s. 148:
The appellant raised concerns about the validity of reassessment as the notice u/s. 148 was issued twice for the same assessment year. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural aspect of the reassessment due to non-compliance with the directions regarding objections to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, rather than addressing the issue of duplicate notices.

Issue 4: Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Legal Standards:
The appellant alleged that the impugned order was based on irrelevant considerations and violated principles of natural justice and established judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal's decision did not delve into this issue specifically in the judgment provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the assessment order dated 03.10.2008 due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements regarding objections to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice u/s. 148. The judgment primarily focused on this procedural aspect, declaring the assessment order as void ab initio.

← Previous Next →