Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (5) TMI 1460 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Challenge to reassessment action for AY 2017-18 and AY 2020-21 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegation of diversion of funds received from Earth Justice for legal services.
3. Dispute over the authenticity of services rendered and expenses claimed.
4. Interpretation of Section 147 pre-amendment and post-amendment in Finance Act, 2021.
5. Consideration of principles governing initiation of reassessment action under Section 148.
6. Dismissal of writ petitions and preservation of petitioner's rights for ongoing reassessment proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitions challenged the reassessment actions for AY 2017-18 and AY 2020-21 initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute primarily revolved around funds received from Earth Justice, allegedly diverted for activities unrelated to legal services for the trust "Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment."

2. The core issue was the diversion of funds meant for specific activities to the petitioner's account, with allegations of no professional services rendered or documented. The respondent's observations highlighted the lack of supporting documents to substantiate the services claimed, leading to the initiation of reassessment under Section 148.

3. The respondent's objections emphasized the absence of proof regarding the actual services provided, agreements with Earth Justice, and the authenticity of claimed expenses. The conclusion pointed towards funds being utilized for activities beyond professional services, indicating a diversion of funds without proper documentation or agreements.

4. The petitioner argued that the income in question had already been taxed and included in the Return of Income, citing the Explanation to Section 147 pre-amendment. Reference was made to a previous interim order to support the contention that there was no escapement of income.

5. The court, after hearing both parties, found no justification to entertain the challenge at that stage, considering the conclusions under Section 148A(d). The court highlighted the limited scope of review at the initiation stage of reassessment, focusing on whether the Assessing Officer applied the relevant principles regarding income escapement.

6. Despite addressing the Section 68 issue and the allegation of income diversion, the court dismissed the writ petitions. However, the order preserved the petitioner's rights for ongoing reassessment proceedings, ensuring that the dismissal did not prejudice the petitioner's contentions during the reassessment process. The dismissal was based on the assessment of the Assessing Officer's prima facie opinion and the principles governing reassessment initiation under Section 148.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates