2009 (4) TMI 1020 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the legality of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1996-97, challenging the reopening of assessment and the limitation period for such action.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Legality of Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner, a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn, filed a writ petition to challenge a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessing officer had completed the regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income of the petitioner. Subsequently, a notice was issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment, alleging that income had escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that the reopening of assessment was barred by limitation u/s 147 of the Act.

Issue 2: Compliance with Disclosure Requirements:
The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the prescribed period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessing officer failed to provide a specific finding that income had escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. The petitioner had fully disclosed all material facts, including details of assets, lease agreements, and depreciation computations, during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3).

Judgment Summary:
The High Court examined the legality of the notice issued under Section 148 and the compliance with disclosure requirements by the petitioner. It was observed that the notice was issued after the expiry of the four-year limitation period, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessing officer did not establish that income had escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of fully and truly disclosing material facts for assessment purposes. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed, with no costs incurred.