2019 (11) TMI 369 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction to issue notices - HELD THAT - Perusal of the last portion of the communication shows that the petitioner's right has not been affected. What has been stated is that the petitioner would be afforded adequate opportunity to explain his case. Therefore, one has to draw an inference that it is not an order and it is only a communication wherein it is specifically stated that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the petitioner has an opportunity to explain his version. The contention of the petitioner that objections stated in para-21.2 have not been appraised by the concerned authority. If it is not considered, it is an advantage to the petitioner in future to take the contention that his grievance/objections have not been addressed, which would be non-application of mind, and on that ground itself further proceedings will be treated as void. The present petition is premature. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as premature reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax in terms of annexure-C and appraise all his contentions. In the event of making a detailed explanation along with the documents before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax pursuant to the communication dated February 28, 2019, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru is hereby directed to consider each and every contention to be raised by the petitioner and pass speaking order after due consideration of each contention, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notices under sections 148, 143(2), and 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax to issue notices and overrule objections; Validity of reassessment proceedings; Prematurity of the petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash notices under sections 148, 143(2), and 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The impugned notices were challenged as not constituting final reassessment orders. The Deputy Commissioner initiated reassessment proceedings based on a reasonable belief of escaped income, as mandated by the Supreme Court's directions in a relevant case. The petitioner contended that lack of reasons with reference to materials renders the notices without jurisdiction, citing court precedents on interference with show-cause notices.

2. The judgment emphasized the distinction between total want of jurisdiction and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. It established that a court acting without jurisdiction renders its decree void, which can be challenged at any stage. The concept of "competency" in court decisions was linked to jurisdiction, with judgments passed without jurisdiction deemed nullities. The judgment elaborated on the definition and significance of jurisdiction concerning the subject matter, parties, and questions for decision.

3. The analysis delved into the fundamental importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings, distinguishing between the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction. It highlighted that a court's authority to decide a case is based on jurisdiction over the person and subject matter. The judgment clarified that a court acting wrongly within its jurisdiction renders a decision voidable, not void. It further discussed the implications of pending proceedings and the absence of provisions for transferring such proceedings under specific acts.

4. The petition's prematurity was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Deputy Commissioner's actions were deemed lawful, and the petitioner was assured an opportunity to present his case before a final order was passed. The petitioner's objections were acknowledged, and the communication from the Deputy Commissioner was considered a preliminary step, not a final order. The judgment dismissed the petition as premature, allowing the petitioner to address objections and pursue further action before the Deputy Commissioner.

5. In conclusion, the petition challenging the notices under the Income-tax Act was dismissed as premature. The judgment directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner's contentions and issue a speaking order after due consideration, in compliance with the law. The detailed analysis of jurisdiction, legal authority, and procedural aspects underscored the importance of following due process in tax reassessment proceedings.