9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 125 - HC - Income TaxReassessment - validity of notice issued u/s 148 - Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the Assessing Officer had no relevant material to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, for the year under consideration? - Held that - Section 147 came up for constitution in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer & others 1981 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court , where it was held that If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Income Tax Officer could not have reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and such escapement was by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to he struck down as invalid - the Tribunal could not have gone into the adequacy and sufficiency of reasons - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
Validity of notice under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the adequacy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Analysis: The High Court addressed an appeal filed under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising from a judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2001-02. The court noted a typographical error in the substantial questions of law, which was rectified. The primary issues revolved around the justification of the Assessing Officer's actions in issuing a notice under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the adequacy of the reasons recorded for reopening the case. The court examined the order of the Tribunal and highlighted that the notice under section 147 read with section 148 was deemed without jurisdiction due to inadequate reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The court referred to the legal requirements for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under section 147, emphasizing the necessity of having reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and that such escapement is due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Citing previous judgments, the court reiterated that the belief must be reasonable, based on relevant and material reasons, and not arbitrary or irrational. The court clarified that while the adequacy of reasons is not subject to investigation, the relevance and nexus of the reasons to the belief can be examined. The court further emphasized that the Assessing Officer must have valid reasons before issuing a notice under section 147 read with section 148. Additionally, the court referred to a Supreme Court case to underline the conditions precedent for the Assessing Officer to acquire jurisdiction under section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the Act. It was highlighted that both conditions, i.e., the belief of under-assessment or escapement of income and the failure of the assessee to disclose material facts, must coexist to confer jurisdiction on the Income Tax Officer. The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in assessing the adequacy and sufficiency of reasons, as it was not within its purview. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
|
