9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148. 2. Legality of notice under Section 143(2) issued after the expiry of 12 months and the consequential validity of assessments. 3. Taxing of rental income from the property in the name of the assessee's wife. 4. Taxing of investments in FDRs in the names of the assessee's wife and minor daughter, and interest thereon. Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Validity of Initiation of Proceedings under Section 147 and Issuance of Notice under Section 148 The assessee contended that the proceedings under Section 147 were initiated based on newspaper reports and hearsay information, which were not valid grounds. The assessee also argued that since no reasons were recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) before issuing the notice under Section 148, the proceedings were invalid. However, it was noted that the assessee had not pressed this ground during the previous hearing, and therefore, the objections against the validity of proceedings under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148 were rejected. Issue No. 2: Legality of Notice under Section 143(2) Issued After the Expiry of 12 Months and Consequential Validity of Assessments The assessee argued that the notices under Section 143(2) were issued after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the returns were filed in response to the notice under Section 148, making them invalid. The Tribunal considered various decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which allowed new legal grounds to be raised if they arose from facts already on record. The Tribunal admitted the ground and found that the notices under Section 143(2) were indeed issued after the statutory period, rendering them invalid. Consequently, the assessments based on these notices were quashed. Issue No. 3: Taxing of Rental Income from the Property in the Name of the Assessee's Wife The assessee contended that the rental income from the house property in his wife's name should not be taxed in his hands. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had accepted the wife's business activities and her income from manufacturing and selling Achar. The Revenue failed to prove that the investment in the house was made by the assessee or that the wife was a benamidar. The Tribunal concluded that the rental income belonged to the wife and should not be taxed in the assessee's hands. Issue No. 4: Taxing of Investments in FDRs in the Names of the Assessee's Wife and Minor Daughter, and Interest Thereon The Tribunal examined the investments in FDRs and interest thereon. It was found that the FDRs in the wife's name were purchased from her own income, and there was no evidence to suggest that the investment was made by the assessee. Therefore, neither the investment nor the interest on these FDRs could be taxed in the assessee's hands. For the FDRs in the daughter's name, the Tribunal noted that the investment was made in 1991, and hence, could not be taxed in the assessment years in question. However, the interest on these FDRs, lacking satisfactory evidence of the daughter's independent income, was to be taxed in the assessee's hands, subject to deduction under Section 80L. Similarly, petty deposits in the assessee's bank account were considered out of his savings, and no addition was warranted, but the interest from the bank account was to be taxed, again subject to Section 80L. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessments on the ground of invalid notices under Section 143(2). If this decision is reversed by a higher court, the Tribunal's findings on the merits would stand, resulting in partial relief to the assessee regarding the rental income and FDRs.
|
