9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of invoking section 150(1) for reopening assessments beyond the normal time-limits. 2. Validity of reopening assessments under section 148 in accordance with section 149. 3. Whether the reopening of assessments is barred by limitation. 4. The legality of subsequent proceedings, including those under section 263, following an invalid reopening. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Invoking Section 150(1): The primary contention was whether the ITAT's order contained a "finding or direction" that justified invoking section 150(1) to reopen assessments beyond the standard time-limits. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the ITAT's order dated 15-11-1989 did not contain any specific finding or direction, merely observations that the Assessing Officer (AO) could examine the issue of capital gains if legally permissible. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld this view, stating that the Tribunal's observations did not confer additional power on the AO beyond what was permissible under the law. Consequently, the reopening of assessments under section 150(1) was deemed invalid. 2. Validity of Reopening Assessments Under Section 148: The counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening notices issued on 13-3-1995 were beyond the time-limits prescribed under section 149, which had expired for the relevant assessment years (1980-81 to 1985-86). The Tribunal agreed, noting that the last date for issuing such notices had expired by 31-3-1993, thus rendering the reopening invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO could not change his opinion retrospectively without adhering to the prescribed time-limits. 3. Reopening Barred by Limitation: The Tribunal noted that even if the ITAT's order was assumed to contain a finding or direction, the reassessments were still barred by limitation under section 150(2). For the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the limitation period expired before the ITAT's order dated 15-11-1989, making the reopening impermissible. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the AO took an unreasonable amount of time (more than five years) to issue the reopening notices and complete the assessments, which were completed on 28-3-1997. This delay was considered excessive and unreasonable, further invalidating the reopening. 4. Legality of Subsequent Proceedings: Given that the reassessment orders were deemed invalid and barred by limitation, the Tribunal concluded that the subsequent proceedings under section 263 and the consequential orders passed by the AO were also non est in law. The Tribunal quashed the orders passed under section 263 and the resultant assessment orders, emphasizing that an order which is non-existent cannot be revised. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all the appeals filed by the assessees, holding that the reopening of assessments was invalid due to the absence of a specific finding or direction in the ITAT's order, the expiry of the prescribed time-limits, and the unreasonable delay in initiating reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings under section 263 and the resultant assessment orders were also quashed.
|
