2019 (10) TMI 778 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - HELD THAT - Same income which has been termed as escaped income for the assessment year 2012-13 was a subject matter of challenge before the appellate authority under the said Act in a different proceeding. The appellate authority had upheld the contention of the petitioner before it with regard to the computation of the said income as income from capital gains and an income not from business and profession. It is thus contended that there could be no reason for the authorities to come to a conclusion that the income had escaped assessment or that the petitioner had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts for assessment and an arguable case has been made out by the petitioner. This matter requires to be heard on affidavits. Let affidavit in-opposition be filed within a week after re-opening; reply thereto, if any, within a week thereafter. The authorities shall not proceed with the re-assessment up to November 30, 2019. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondents as also the learned Advocate who had appeared for the respondents.

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the notice and order issued by income tax authorities.
2. Non-application of mind and failure to consider rebuttal filed by petitioner.
3. Compliance with proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
4. Allegations of income escaping assessment for assessment year 2015-16.
5. Disclosure of facts by the petitioner regarding income assessment.
6. Legal principles governing reopening of assessments beyond four years.
7. Appellate authority's decision on the income in question.
8. Jurisdiction of income tax authorities to reopen assessments.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the notice and order issued by income tax authorities, seeking direction to recall and cancel the said notices. An interim order was requested to restrain authorities from further action based on the notices. The petitioner contended that the order suffered from non-application of mind and was issued mechanically without considering the petitioner's rebuttal filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2. The petitioner argued that the notice and order did not meet the requirements of the first proviso to Section 147 of the said Act. It was claimed that the income allegedly escaping assessment was part of the assessment for the year 2015-16, and authorities were informed of this fact by the petitioner in response to the notice issued under Section 148.

3. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that they had already disclosed relevant facts in response to a notice received during scrutiny assessment for the year 2012-13. The petitioner explained why certain advances received were not accounted for in the return for 2012-13 but were reflected in the return for 2015-16. This disclosure was argued to fulfill the requirement of disclosing all material facts for assessment.

4. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support their contention that unless the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose necessary facts for assessment, income tax authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments after four years. The petitioner emphasized that all primary facts were disclosed, and it was not their duty to guide the assessing authority on drawing inferences from those facts.

5. The petitioner also highlighted that the income in question had been subject to challenge before the appellate authority under the said Act in a separate proceeding. The appellate authority had upheld the petitioner's contention regarding the nature of the income, further supporting the argument that there was no basis for authorities to conclude that income had escaped assessment.

6. The court directed the matter to be heard on affidavits, with timelines set for filing of documents and responses. The authorities were restrained from proceeding with reassessment until a specified date. The petitioner's advocate was tasked with communicating the court's order to all relevant parties, and the matter was scheduled to appear before the Regular Bench post a vacation period.

← Previous Next →