Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 565 - AT - Income TaxIssues involved: Challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 148 and assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Details of the judgment: Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 and assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3): The appellant filed appeals against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, challenging the notice issued u/s 148 and assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3). The appellant argued that the notice u/s 148 was invalid as the Assessing Officer had already considered the relevant information in the original assessment u/s 143(3). The appellant contended that there was no failure on their part to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The appellant provided evidence that the cash deposits in question were duly disclosed in the balance sheet and P&L account during the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148, issued after four years from the relevant assessment year, was illegal as there was no failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws to support its decision. Issue 2: Allegation of failure to disclose material facts: The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed u/s 147 and confirmed by the CIT(A) was bad in law and deserved to be quashed. Citing case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be justified if there was no failure to disclose material facts truly and fully. Issue 3: Consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Since the assessment order was quashed as bad in law, the Tribunal rendered the consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as infructuous. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, quashing the assessment order passed by the AO as bad in law. The Tribunal held that the impugned reopening notice issued beyond the four-year period was illegal and ordered the assessment order to be quashed.
|