1987 (9) TMI 88 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment under section 147(a).
2. Whether the reassessment is barred by limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment under Section 147(a):

Facts and Arguments:
- The original assessment for the year in question was completed on 29-9-1977, with the total income determined at Rs. 69,810.
- The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under section 147(a) by issuing a notice under section 148, served on 31-3-1978.
- The reason for reopening was the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000 for the sale of standing trees, which was not included in the original assessment.
- The ITO considered this non-disclosure as a failure on the part of the assessee to furnish necessary particulars, thus leading to income escaping assessment.

CIT (A) Findings:
- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] held that the ITO had already examined the taxability of the Rs. 5,00,000 receipt during the original assessment.
- The notice under section 148 was deemed invalid as it reflected a change of opinion by the second ITO.
- The reassessment was considered time-barred since the draft assessment order was served on 29-3-1982, and the final assessment should have been completed within 30 days.

Departmental Representative's Arguments:
- The assessee failed to disclose fully and truly the nature of the Rs. 5,00,000 receipt, giving the ITO jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147(a).
- The ITO was satisfied that due to the assessee's failure to furnish necessary particulars, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

Assessee's Arguments:
- The assessee contended that all primary facts were disclosed during the original assessment, with no omission or failure warranting reopening under section 147(a).
- Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Indian Oil Corpn. v. ITO, asserting that the ITO had all necessary information to assess the receipt correctly.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The ITO did not categorically determine whether the reassessment was under section 147(a) or 147(b).
- The Tribunal noted that the primary facts were disclosed during the original assessment, including the Rs. 5,00,000 receipt and the agreement with Assam Forest Products (P) Ltd.
- The ITO's reassessment relied on the same materials available during the original assessment, indicating no new information was obtained.
- The Tribunal concluded that the ITO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147(a) as all primary facts were already before him.

2. Whether the Reassessment is Barred by Limitation:

Facts and Arguments:
- The ITO's draft assessment order was dated 24-3-1982 and forwarded to the assessee on 26-3-1982.
- The assessee objected to the draft assessment on 3-4-1982, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) passed an order on 9-7-1982.
- The final assessment order was passed on 16-7-1982.

CIT (A) Findings:
- The reassessment was deemed time-barred as it was not completed within 30 days from the date of the draft assessment order.

Departmental Representative's Arguments:
- The Departmental Representative argued that the reassessment was within the time allowed under section 153(3) read with Explanation 1(iv).

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal found that the ITO's final assessment order was within the permitted time frame.
- However, since the reassessment under section 147(a) was invalid, the issue of limitation was rendered academic.

Conclusion:
- The appeal is allowed in part. The reassessment under section 147(a) was invalid as all primary facts were disclosed during the original assessment. The issue of limitation, although found in favor of the revenue, is of academic interest due to the invalid reassessment.

← Previous Next →