2022 (5) TMI 175 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT - As notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued by the respondent no.2 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as there was absolutely no information relating to the assessee which may give rise for reason to believe for initiating re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, 1961. It further appears that Section 147 of the Act, 1961 is being used as a tool to harass the assessee and the notice, prima facie , appears to be without jurisdiction. We direct the respondent no.2 to file a short counter affidavit by means of his personal affidavit stating as to how the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued by him to the petitioner was a valid notice and how the respondent no.2 could get jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 when the very basis of issuing notice, ie., 'reason to believe', recorded by him was totally unfounded, non-existent and wholly baseless. Put up as a fresh case before the appropriate Bench on 19.04.2022.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment application to quash reassessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of notice under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
3. Objection to reasons recorded by assessing authority.
4. Rejection of objection by respondent no.2.
5. Prima facie jurisdictional validity of re-assessment notice under Section 147.
6. Direction for respondent no.2 to file counter affidavit.

Amendment Application:
The petitioner filed an amendment application seeking to quash the reassessment order dated 31.03.2022 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, making an addition to the total income. The respondent had no objection to the amendment, and with consent, the application was allowed for necessary amendments within three days.

Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was issued based on information received regarding alleged unaccounted cash transactions. The petitioner objected to the reasons recorded by the assessing authority as factually incorrect, denying any such transactions or exempt income declared. The objection was rejected without addressing the factual inaccuracies, leading to the issuance of the re-assessment order.

Objection and Rejection:
The petitioner's objection to the notice under Section 148 was based on factual inaccuracies, which were not addressed in the rejection by respondent no.2. The rejection seemed to lack proper consideration and material, indicating a prima facie failure to apply the mind by the respondent.

Jurisdictional Validity of Re-assessment Notice:
The re-assessment order dated 31.03.2022 raised concerns about the jurisdictional validity of the notice under Section 148. The court found that there was no information related to the assessee to justify initiating re-assessment proceedings under Section 147. The notice appeared to be without jurisdiction and potentially used as a tool to harass the assessee.

Direction for Counter Affidavit:
In light of the jurisdictional issues, the court directed respondent no.2 to file a counter affidavit explaining the validity of the notice under Section 148 and how jurisdiction was established for its issuance. The court scheduled a fresh hearing and instructed no coercive action against the petitioner until the next date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural and jurisdictional aspects of the case, focusing on the validity of the notice under the Income Tax Act and the objections raised by the petitioner regarding factual inaccuracies and jurisdictional concerns.