9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 271 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Validity of notice u/s 148 - assessee obligation to disclose the material facts and such disclosure should be full and true and the petitioner has made true and full disclosure of all material facts - HELD THAT - As in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal 1993 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT had held that the reassessment proceedings may be started either because of some fresh fact come into light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the fact previously disclosed comes into light which intends to expose untruthfulness of those facts. In the present case, the reassessment has been ordered upon discovery of apprehended untruthfulness of facts previously disclosed, and therefore, the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) does not support the petitioner and as per the law laid down in Srikrishna 1996 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT the reassessment proceedings have rightly been initiated. As already been held by this Court the finding of the Assessing Officer that the petitioner had not made full and true disclosure of all the material facts which relied in an income having escaped assessment is based on reasons which need no interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the aforesaid finding. The judgment passed by this Court has also been sought to be reviewed on the ground that various case laws relied upon by the petitioner in support of its claim have not been considered by this Court. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, the judgments of Aventis Pharma Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 317 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , Arun Gupta. 2015 (2) TMI 213 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and United Electrical Co. Ltd. 2002 (10) TMI 86 - DELHI HIGH COURT cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been referred to and dealt with. This Court is not obliged to refer to each and every judgment forming part of a compilation of judgments submitted after conclusion of oral submissions, which judgments were not placed before the Court during oral submissions. Moreover, while deciding the writ petition, we have referred to and relied upon the relevant case laws and it is not been submitted by the petitioner that in the judgment sought to be reviewed, the law applicable to the facts of the case has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, this submission also stands rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds for review of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2022. 3. Scope and limitations of judicial review and review petitions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The petitioner challenged the validity of a notice dated 26.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the reassessment proceedings initiated thereafter. The court examined the original records provided by the Income Tax Department, which revealed discrepancies between the petitioner’s disclosed income and the receipts shown under Sections 194 A, 194 C, 194 H, 194 I, and 194 J. The assessing authority concluded that the petitioner had not fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment, leading to the reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. 2. Grounds for Review of the Judgment and Order Dated 20.04.2022: The petitioner filed a review application on several grounds: - The petitioner argued that it had not received any payment from its principal on which tax was deducted under Section 194 I and 194 J. - The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not mention the disclosure of reimbursement amounts, and thus the issue of non-disclosure did not arise. - The figures mentioned in the reasons recorded were alleged to be imaginary and not reflected in the 26AS statement. The court reiterated that the scope of review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner’s arguments were found to be questions of fact that should be addressed by the Assessing Officer, not in a review petition. 3. Scope and Limitations of Judicial Review and Review Petitions: The court emphasized that review cannot be treated as an appeal and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court’s precedents, such as Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury and Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, were cited to explain that an error must be self-evident and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning. The petitioner’s contention that the judgment in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. was case-specific and not applicable was rejected. The court held that there was prima facie material for issuing the notice under Section 148, and the sufficiency or correctness of the material could not be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court also addressed the petitioner’s reliance on Phool Chand Bajrang Lal, stating that reassessment can be initiated based on new information or the untruthfulness of previously disclosed facts. The petitioner’s claim that various case laws were not considered was dismissed, as the relevant judgments were referred to and dealt with in the original judgment. Conclusion: The application for review was dismissed, as the judgment dated 20.04.2022 did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner’s factual contentions were deemed inappropriate for review proceedings and should be addressed by the Assessing Officer. The court reaffirmed the principles governing the scope of review and judicial review, emphasizing that review is not an appeal in disguise.
|
