9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 68 - HC - Income TaxAO states that income to the extent of amount of discount given has escaped assessment, hence, discount given is income of the assessee which is chargeable to tax - as could be seen from the reasons recorded the respondent authority was not sure as to which income has escaped assessment and what was the quantum thereof in absence of valid assumption of jurisdiction the proposed reopening is bad in law and therefore, notice issued u/s 148 are quashed
Issues:
Challenge to notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2002-2003. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, merged with another company named Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Limited. The respondent Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2002-2003, which is being challenged. 2. The Assessing Officer issued the notice based on reasons recorded, stating that income had escaped assessment due to discounts given to Jay Jee Enterprise without proper accounting. The petitioner raised objections, contending that no income had actually escaped assessment and that the notice was invalid. 3. The Assessing Officer's belief that income had escaped assessment was solely based on the discounts given by the petitioner, equating the discount with income chargeable to tax. However, there was no legal basis provided for treating discounts as income. 4. The court found that there was no material to support the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate any specific provision obliging the treatment of discounts as income for tax purposes, rendering the notice unsustainable. 5. The court concluded that since no income had actually escaped assessment, the notice to reopen the assessment for the year in question was quashed. The court did not delve into the effect of the amalgamation due to the primary issue being resolved in favor of the petitioner. 6. The petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
