9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 332 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether notice issued prior to the concerned officer obtaining necessary administrative approval? - HELD THAT - Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after obtaining requisite administrative approval, we are not satisfied with the explanation given in the counter affidavit if it all, it can be called, as an explanation as no attempt has been made to explain what is stated in paragraph 1 of the impugned order dated 28.09.2018. As far as the other aspect is concerned, in our view, since the proof put in place by the petitioner-assessee with regard to the acknowledgement of return filed for AY 2011-2012 has not been disputed by the Revenue, as noticed above, the challenge to the impugned notice and the impugned order will have to be sustained. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to quash the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 as also the impugned order dated 28.09.2018. It is ordered accordingly.
Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2011-2012. 2. Administrative approval for the notice issuance. 3. Filing of Income Tax Return (ITR) for AY 2011-2012 by the petitioner-assessee. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 148: The petitioner challenged the notice dated 27.03.2018 issued by the Revenue under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2011-2012. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without necessary administrative approval. The Revenue argued that administrative approval was obtained on 26.03.2018. However, the Court found discrepancies between the communication in the counter-affidavit and the impugned order dated 28.09.2018, highlighting the lack of explanation regarding the administrative approval process. The Court concluded that the notice was untenable due to insufficient evidence of administrative approval. Issue 2: Administrative approval for notice issuance: The petitioner's counsel argued that the notice was issued before obtaining administrative approval, which was crucial under Section 151 of the Act. The Revenue claimed that approval was obtained before issuing the notice, citing the approval date as 26.03.2018. However, the Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and emphasized the importance of providing a clear record of administrative approval. The lack of supporting evidence led the Court to quash the notice and the order dated 28.09.2018. Issue 3: Filing of ITR for AY 2011-2012: The petitioner asserted that they had filed the ITR for AY 2011-2012, contrary to the Revenue's claim in the notice under Section 148. The petitioner provided proof of filing, including receipts and acknowledgments. The Revenue acknowledged the petitioner's submission and admitted that the return for AY 2011-2012 was filed and acknowledged by them. As the Revenue did not dispute the petitioner's evidence, the Court upheld the challenge to the notice and order based on the lack of merit in the Revenue's claim. In conclusion, the High Court quashed the notice dated 27.03.2018 and the order dated 28.09.2018 due to the absence of proper administrative approval and the petitioner's submission of evidence regarding the filing of the ITR for AY 2011-2012. The Court directed the Revenue to pay costs to the petitioner and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
|
