9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1145 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - requirement of recording of reasons to believe - validity of jurisdiction assumed by the AO for reopening the case of the assessee - disallowing claim of deduction u/s.54F - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer had issued Notice u/s. 148 without recording the reasons to believe on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened by him. In our considered view, the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to record reasons to believe prior to issuance of notice u/s.148, ould go to the very root of the validity of jurisdiction assumed by him u/s. 147 of the Act. Our aforesaid view, i.e., the absence of recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of Notice u/s. 148 would render the jurisdiction assumed by him for reopening the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act and resultantly the consequential assessment so framed as invalid as relying on cases Abdul Majid 2005 (5) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , Baldwin Boys High School 2015 (2) TMI 806 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , Shiv Ratan Soni and Baldev Singh Giani 2000 (9) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Requirement of recording of reasons to believe enshrined u/s. 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer. Observing, that the assessment record did not contain reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, thus the notice of reassessment proceedings had to be treated as nullity. Thus we are of the considered view, that as the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of Notice u/s.148 had failed to record reasons to believe , therefore, he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment u/s.148/143(3) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Validity of jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for reopening the case of the assessee and passing the order u/s.148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur, arising from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Sec. 148 r.w.s. 143(3) for the assessment year 2012-13. The grounds of appeal included the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allegedly not considering written submissions, confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings, and not allowing a deduction u/s.54F. The Assessing Officer reopened the case due to differences in sale consideration and stamp valuation, leading to the determination of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs.21,38,420. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, prompting the assessee to appeal. The primary issue raised was the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for reopening the case. The Authorized Representative argued that the Assessing Officer failed to record "reasons to believe" before issuing the notice u/s.148, rendering the assessment order unsustainable. The absence of recorded reasons was confirmed through assessment records and correspondence with the Assessing Officer. The Authorized Representative cited legal precedents to support the contention that the lack of recorded reasons invalidates the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer. In response, the Departmental Representative relied on lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal examined the assessment records and found that the Assessing Officer indeed issued the notice u/s.148 without recording the "reasons to believe." Citing Section 148(2) of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the failure to record reasons before issuing the notice rendered the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer invalid. The Tribunal referenced judicial pronouncements to support this conclusion and subsequently quashed the assessment order due to the lack of valid jurisdiction. As a result of the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal did not delve into other contentions raised by the Authorized Representative, leaving those aspects open for future consideration. The appeal of the assessee was allowed based on the quashing of the assessment order due to the Assessing Officer's lack of valid jurisdiction. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the crucial issue of the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for reopening the case, highlighting the legal requirement of recording "reasons to believe" before issuing a notice u/s.148. The decision to quash the assessment order underscored the significance of complying with procedural requirements to maintain the integrity of the assessment process.
|
