9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 995 - HC - Income TaxDropping of re-assessment proceedings - grievance of the petitioner that once the Assessing Officer has issued a notice for reassessment under Section 147/148 and the assessee has not opposed the same, then it is not open to the Assessing Officer to drop the same - HELD THAT - It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decision of this Court in case of K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs. Income Tax Officer 1999 (8) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT in favour of the respondent. In the above case, this Court has held that dropping of re-assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act, even in the absence of the assessee challenges the notice under Section 147/148 of the act, is justified. This Court emphasized that the proceedings for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act is for the benefit of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of revenue
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Dropping of assessment proceedings - Validity of dropping proceedings when assessee does not oppose notice under Section 147/148 - Applicability of previous court decisions - Entitlement to refund of tax paid if proceedings are dropped after filing return pursuant to notice under Section 147/148. Analysis: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Assessing Officer dropped the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. The petitioner argues that once a notice for reassessment is issued and the assessee does not oppose it, the Assessing Officer should not drop the proceedings, deeming it impermissible. 2. The issue raised in the petition has been addressed in a previous decision by the Bombay High Court in the case of K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs. Income Tax Officer, where it was held that dropping reassessment proceedings under Section 147, even if the assessee does not challenge the notice, is justified as it serves the benefit of the Revenue. The court emphasized the purpose of reassessment proceedings under Section 147. 3. The petitioner refers to a conflicting decision from the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vali Brothers, where it was held that if a return is filed in response to a notice under Section 147/148 and the proceedings are later dropped, the assessee is entitled to a refund of tax paid under Section 237 of the Act. The return filed due to reopening of assessment is deemed as a return under Section 139. 4. However, the present case does not involve an application for refund under Section 237, which is time-barred, and no request for an extension has been made to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Therefore, the decision of the Allahabad High Court may not be directly applicable to the current circumstances, especially since it did not mandate the completion of reassessment proceedings in the absence of objections by the assessee. 5. Given the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in the case of K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag, which favors the Revenue, the court declines to entertain the petition. The decision reaffirms the principle that dropping reassessment proceedings under Section 147, even if the assessee does not oppose the notice, is permissible and serves the interests of the Revenue. 6. Consequently, the petition challenging the dropping of assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is dismissed by the Bombay High Court, upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer to drop the proceedings despite the lack of opposition from the assessee.
|
