9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the income included in the assessee's assessments belonged to the assessee or the HUF styled as M/s Ram Dihal & Sons (HUF), Jaunpur. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Initiation of Proceedings under Section 147 Grounds of Appeal: - Ground No. 1.1: The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of action under Section 147 and the assessment made thereunder. - Ground No. 1.2: There existed no material which could lead to the 'formation of belief' that the appellant's income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147, rendering the initiation of proceedings and subsequent assessment void ab initio. Arguments by Assessee: - Non-Compliance with Section 148(2): The mandatory requirement of recording reasons before issuing notice under Section 148 was not met. - Non-Service of Notices: Notices under Section 148 were not served on the assessee. - Lack of Material: No material or information was available with the ITO to form a belief that the assessee's income had escaped assessment. Supporting Case Laws: - Sheonath Singh vs. AAC: The Supreme Court held that the belief must be based on reasonable grounds and not on mere suspicion. - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a live link between the material and the belief of income escapement. - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO: The Supreme Court stated that the reasons must have a rational connection with the belief. - K.M. Bansal vs. CIT: The High Court held that recording reasons is mandatory. Arguments by Department: - Support of CIT(A) Order: The Departmental Representative argued that the proceedings under Section 147 were validly initiated. - Case Laws: Cited cases like ITO vs. Biju Patnaik, Midland Fruit & Vegetable Products (India)(P) Ltd. vs. CIT, ITO vs. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P) Ltd., and Drill Rock Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO to support their stance. Tribunal's Analysis: - Mandatory Prerequisites for Section 147: - Possession of definite and relevant information or material leading to the belief of income escapement. - Recording of reasons confirming the belief. - Direct nexus and live link between the information/material and the belief. - Findings: - The order-sheet entry dated 16th Jan 1997 did not specify the quantum of income or material, lacking a direct nexus or live link. - Reports from ADI and Addl. DIT(Inv.) expressed doubts rather than conclusive findings. - No specific income or particular assessment year was identified in the reports. - The ITO did not conduct any enquiry after receiving the report before issuing the notice under Section 148. Conclusion: - The initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory prerequisites. - Consequently, the issuance of notices under Section 148 and the assessments framed were declared null and void. Issue 2: Ownership of Income Arguments by Assessee: - The assessee claimed that the income included in the assessments belonged to the HUF styled as M/s Ram Dihal & Sons (HUF), Jaunpur, and not to the individual assessee. Tribunal's Decision: - Since the assessments were quashed on the legal ground of invalid initiation of proceedings under Section 147, the tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the case, including the ownership of income. Final Judgment: - The appeals for all four assessment years were allowed. - The consolidated assessment orders for assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96, dated 5th March 1998, were quashed as bad in law and void ab initio.
|
