9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of notices issued under section 148 for reopening assessments
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin involved the issue of the validity of notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 for reopening assessments for the years 1982-83 to 1985-86. The notices required the assessee to file returns of income within 30 days, contrary to the statutory requirement of furnishing full particulars for reassessment within the same period. The crux of the matter was whether the notices were invalid due to this procedural error. The Revenue argued that under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, any defect in a notice does not render it invalid. However, the CIT (Appeals) held that the notices were indeed invalid, leading to the subsequent actions being null and void. The learned departmental representative contended that the defect in the notices, mentioning the requirement to furnish income particulars within 30 days, was a rectifiable mistake under section 292B. The Assessing Officer's position was that the notices were valid, and the CIT (Appeals) erred in quashing the assessments solely on the basis of this procedural issue. The original assessments under section 143(3) were reopened due to income escaping assessment post a search operation, leading to the issuance of notices under section 148. The assessee argued that the incorrect notices rendered subsequent actions illegal, emphasizing the importance of a proper notice under section 148 for reassessments. The counsel for the assessee highlighted the invalidity of notices not in line with statutory provisions, citing a Karnataka High Court decision. The amended provisions of section 148 mandated providing the assessee with a period of at least 30 days to file returns post-notice receipt. The counsel relied on case law to support the contention that defective notices lead to illegal subsequent actions. However, the departmental representative argued that procedural defects, including notice issuance, are curable under section 292B, referencing a Supreme Court judgment to support this stance. In its analysis, the Tribunal considered the conflicting arguments and case law presented by both parties. The Tribunal emphasized the Supreme Court's decision in Jai Prakash Singh, asserting that procedural defects in notices do not invalidate subsequent actions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Appeals) order, directing a fresh decision on the appeals based on merits and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the precedence of the Supreme Court's latest decision on the matter.
|
