9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 153(1)(b) for limitation purposes. 2. Validity of notice under Section 147/148. 3. Assessment being barred by limitation under Section 153(1)(a)(iii). 4. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 153(1)(b) for limitation purposes: The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision confirming the ITO's order that the provisions of Section 153(1)(b) were applicable for the purpose of limitation. The assessee argued that the voluntary return filed on 29-8-1975 should be considered under Section 153(1)(a)(iii), making the assessment time-barred by 31-3-1978. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's view, noting an increase in the assessee's wealth from Rs. 1,43,410 to Rs. 2,25,781 without sufficient explanation, thus justifying the extended time limit under Section 153(1)(b). The Tribunal, however, found that the conditions for invoking Section 153(1)(b) were not met within the normal period of limitation, rendering the extended time limit inapplicable. 2. Validity of notice under Section 147/148: The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 147/148 was illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction, as there was no failure to file a return or disclose material facts. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, noting that it was purely legal and did not require fresh investigation of facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions precedent for issuing a notice under Section 148, such as the omission or failure to file a return or disclose material facts, were not satisfied. The assessee had filed a return on 29-8-1975, which was pending for assessment, making the reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice under Section 148 void ab initio. 3. Assessment being barred by limitation under Section 153(1)(a)(iii): The assessee argued that the assessment was barred by limitation under Section 153(1)(a)(iii), as the return filed on 29-8-1975 should have been assessed by 31-3-1978. The ITO, however, completed the assessment on 20-3-1984, invoking Section 153(1)(b) due to alleged concealment of income. The Tribunal found that the ITO did not inform the assessee about the alleged concealment within the normal period of limitation, making the extended time limit inapplicable. Consequently, the assessment was deemed time-barred and invalid. 4. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty of Rs. 1,10,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the penalty was based on the reassessment order dated 20-3-1984, which had been quashed. The Tribunal emphasized that without a valid assessment order, the penalty could not stand. The Tribunal also noted that the ITO did not properly evaluate the assessee's explanation during the penalty proceedings, further justifying the cancellation of the penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order dated 20-3-1984, finding it invalid due to the improper issuance of notice under Section 148 and the assessment being time-barred. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
|
