2009 (2) TMI 73 - HC - Income Tax

Notice u/s 148 jurisdiction - impugned notice was issued by Income Tax Officer, whereas the Assessment Order has been framed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax petitioner contention that the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act has not been controverted - impugned notice is quashed and set aside, as having been issued by an authority who did not have jurisdiction to issue the notice consequently, Assessment Order framed is also quashed

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961; Validity of Assessment Order made under Section 143 (3) read with Section 148 of the Act; Compliance with the law regarding the supply of reasons before assessment; Costs to be borne by the respondent authority.

Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer to issue notice under Section 148:
The petitioner, a Public Charitable & Religious Trust, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2005-2006, contending that the Income Tax Officer who issued the notice did not have jurisdiction. The Assessment Order was made by a different authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent authority did not contest the lack of jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer in issuing the notice, although they relied on section 292B of the Act to address the issue. The court held that since the jurisdictional issue was not contested, the petition should be allowed on this ground, quashing both the notice and the Assessment Order.

Validity of Assessment Order made under Section 143 (3) read with Section 148:
The court noted that the respondent authority had attempted to frame an Assessment Order based on a notice issued without jurisdiction. Despite previous legal precedents emphasizing the importance of supplying reasons before proceeding with an assessment, the respondent authority failed to provide the reasons until directed by the court in a previous proceeding. The court did not condone the respondent authority's actions and quashed both the notice and the Assessment Order due to the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice.

Compliance with the law regarding the supply of reasons before assessment:
The court highlighted the respondent authority's failure to supply reasons for the assessment before proceeding, despite legal requirements and previous court directions. The court expressed disapproval of the respondent authority's conduct in attempting to frame an Assessment Order based on a notice issued without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court quashed both the notice and the Assessment Order, emphasizing the importance of complying with legal procedures and providing reasons before assessment.

Costs to be borne by the respondent authority:
In light of the respondent authority's actions and the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice, the court ordered the respondent authority to pay costs amounting to Rs.500.00. The court deemed it just and fair for the respondent authority to bear the costs of the petition due to the circumstances surrounding the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice and the subsequent Assessment Order.