9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 384 - HC - Income TaxNotice u/s 148 - Tribunal held that the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 as bad in law and consequently quashing the same Held that, It is well-settled that the Income-tax Officer s jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, depends upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
Issues:
Validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1987-88. Legality of the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 for the assessment year 1987-88. Analysis: The High Court of Karnataka heard an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1987-88. The questions raised were related to the validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Act and the legality of the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147. The appellant argued that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the notices under section 148 as bad in law and in declaring the assessment order as bad in law. However, the counsel for the assessee referred to previous judgments by the court and the Supreme Court, including C. N. Nataraj v. ITO and CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, which emphasized that the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen an assessment depends on the validity of the notice issued. Invalid notices render the proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that similar questions had been addressed in previous cases, with decisions favoring the assessee against the Revenue. The court concluded that the questions raised in the appeal had already been settled by previous judgments in favor of the assessee. Citing the precedents set by the court and the Supreme Court, the High Court found that no substantial question of law arose in the present case. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions made in previous cases and ruling against the Revenue.
|
