9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, validity of returns filed by the assessee, assessment based on the returns, classification of Sadhna Enterprises as an association of persons or co-ownership property. Jurisdiction to Issue Notice under Section 148: The petitioner, as the karta of the HUF, filed returns for the assessment year 1978-79, disclosing income below the taxable limit. The respondent issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, alleging that the income had escaped assessment. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue the notice, arguing that the returns were valid and assessments could not be framed based on those returns. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas, emphasizing that if a valid return is voluntarily filed by the assessee, there is no need for a notice under section 34. The court held that the returns filed by the petitioner were valid, and assessments could have been made based on them. Therefore, the notice under section 148 was quashed. Validity of Returns and Assessment: The court analyzed the reasons provided by the respondent for issuing the notice under section 148, which indicated a belief that the returns filed were invalid. The court disagreed with this assessment, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Adinarayana Murthy, stating that assessments based on valid returns cannot be deemed invalid. The court found that the respondent's view was erroneous and contrary to established law. Consequently, the letter stating that the returns were not covered by any subsection of section 139 and could not be used for regular assessments was also quashed. Classification of Sadhna Enterprises: The Department argued that Sadhna Enterprises should be assessed as an association of persons, while the petitioner contended that it was co-ownership property to be assessed under section 26 of the Act. The court allowed the Department to proceed with the assessment of Sadhna Enterprises as per the law, without affecting the petitioner's individual assessment based on the valid returns filed. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, quashing the notice and letter issued by the respondent. The respondent was permitted to proceed with the assessment of the petitioner based on the valid returns voluntarily filed. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, and any security deposit was to be returned to the petitioner after verification.
|
