2020 (2) TMI 738 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - approval granted in terms of the Section 151 (1) to reopen the assessment and to quash the notice issued u/s 148 after holding that the statutory requirement has been complied with and accordingly relegating the writ Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by way of appeal - HELD THAT - When the procedural requirements are satisfied, whether the inference drawn is based on the relevant materials or not is a matter which may involve a fact adjudication. This is not possible at the hands of this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of contentions raised by the Appellant/Assessee is with regard to the satisfaction of the reasons for reopening the assessment after four years. The approval granted and the reasons which made the Income Tax Officer to believe that some income had escaped assessment have to be tested with regard to the actual facts and figures. This comes within the scope of alternative remedy by way of appeal and no prejudice can be stated as caused to the Appellant/Assessee in this regard. To put it more clear, it is not a case where mere question of law is involved; such as violation/non-satisfaction of the particular provisions or as to lack of competency of the authority who has passed the order for proceeding further. Respondent/Revenue submits that assessment proceedings were finalized in respect of 'five' different assessment years and hence five different writ petitions came to be filed by the Appellants/Assessee. Among the 'five', two writ petitions have already been withdrawn and the Assessees have chosen to avail the statutory remedy. As it stands so, no differential treatment is warranted in respect of the present appeals. We hold that these appeals are not maintainable and accordingly they are dismissed. This is without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the Appellants/Assessee to move the statutory authority by way of appeal in accordance with law. It is further made clear that, our discussion is only to the extent of considering the maintainability and no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits involved.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of writ petition challenging approval to reopen assessment and quash notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the approval granted to reopen the assessment and quash the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant felt aggrieved as the assessment proceedings had been finalized in the meantime. The Court considered the maintainability of the appeal as the first point, addressing the procedural formalities and factual sequence. The lead case involved an Assessee whose scrutiny assessment for the year 2012-13 was completed, but a notice of reassessment was issued four years later. The Appellant argued that the reassessment lacked a 'reason to believe' for income escape and no tangible material supported it.

The Appellant contended that all relevant materials had been provided during the initial assessment, and no new facts justified the reassessment. They argued for the satisfaction of statutory requirements, citing precedents. The Respondent, however, highlighted incriminating materials discovered during a survey, indicating revenue fraud through share transfers. The Respondent obtained approval under Section 151(1) of the Act before issuing the notice under Section 148(2). The Respondent emphasized the correctness of the procedure followed, denying violations of natural justice or statutory provisions.

The Court referred to relevant judgments and procedural requirements, emphasizing the availability of statutory appeal as the appropriate remedy. The Respondent pointed out a similar case where the appeal was allowed after the final assessment order was passed. The Court held that the appeals were not maintainable, urging the Appellants to seek recourse through statutory appeal. The judgment clarified that the discussion was limited to maintainability, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the Appellants' right to pursue statutory remedies. The judgment focused on procedural aspects and maintainability, leaving the merits for further consideration through the appropriate legal channels.