9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the following issues: 1. Whether the Income-tax Officer was required to obtain the sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes before issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the provisions of section 150 of the Income Tax Act override the provisions of sections 149 and 151, and if the notice u/s. 148 was validly issued. Issue 1 - Sanction Requirement for Notice u/s. 148: The case involved an assessee who filed returns as an individual and as an HUF for the assessment year 1959-60. The AAC directed that the income should be assessed in the status of the assessee as an HUF. Subsequently, the ITO reopened the assessment and issued a notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act without obtaining the sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The AAC held that the notice was invalid as it was issued after eight years without the required sanction, thus annulling the assessment. Issue 2 - Provisions of Section 150: The Department appealed this decision to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which focused on whether the sanction of the Board was essential before issuing the notice u/s. 148. The Tribunal, citing a previous decision, held that the ITO was not obligated to obtain the Board's permission as the reassessment was consequential to the AAC's directions, falling under section 150 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision led to the reference of questions to the High Court for clarification. High Court Decision: The High Court analyzed the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, particularly sections 148, 149, 150, and 151. It noted that section 150 provides for reassessment in pursuance of an appellate order, overriding section 149. The Court emphasized that section 151 imposes restrictions on the ITO, requiring sanction from the Board or Commissioner before issuing a notice under section 148. However, in cases covered by section 150(1), such as the present one, the Court held that the ITO was not obligated to obtain the sanction of the Board or Commissioner under section 151. Precedent and Conclusion: The Court referred to a previous case where a similar objection was raised regarding the validity of a notice under section 148. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that section 150 overrides sections 149 and 151 in certain circumstances. The Court disagreed with commentary suggesting otherwise and affirmed that the notice under section 148 in this case was validly issued. Consequently, both questions were answered in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the Department.
|
