9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1148 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - attempt to reopen the case based on the audit objection - petitioner s failure to provide attachments and evidence to support their claims - Scope of post-amendment reopening - HELD THAT - In the absence of any attachments being annexed in the present petition this Court cannot examine whether the issue for which reopening is sought details of which were filed during the regular assessment proceedings or not. If the petitioner relied on the same email it was incumbent upon him to annex the attachments to Exhibit C . Therefore even on this count the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in support of his submission. In the assessment order the officer has stated that the income was assessed after verification of the details. At least prima facie there is no indication of the details. Therefore this would require examination and investigation of the facts as to what details were filed and in the absence of any attachments to Exhibit C this Court cannot exercise its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to investigate such factual issues. The information furnished to the petitioner states that the revenue audit could not find any documentary evidence on record to show nexus. Therefore this would require the Court to go into facts of what was filed or not and such an exercise certainly cannot be carried out in writ proceedings. Given the facts in the present case and the petitioner s failure to provide the entire material on which he alleges a change of opinion we do not deem it appropriate to decide the legal contention of whether post-amendment reopening can be done based on an audit opinion even if a query was raised during assessment proceedings. The necessary factual foundation for deciding this issue is simply not evident in this case. Merely relying upon precedents but not demonstrating how they apply to the fact situation at hand or not placing the entire material before the Court renders it quite unsafe to decide this issue one way or the other in this case. Our observations are therefore prima facie. We deem it fit not to exercise discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition but to give the petitioner liberty to raise the issue of the validity of the reassessment proceeding before the Appellate Authority if and when the reassessment order is challenged pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. WP dismissed.
**Issues Presented and Considered:**
The core legal questions considered in this case are: 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18 is valid? 2. Whether the reopening of the case based on audit objections amounts to a change of opinion? 3. Whether the petitioner's failure to provide attachments and evidence affects the court's ability to adjudicate the matter? **Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:** **Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 148** - The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18. - The respondent defended the proceedings citing Explanation-1 to amended Section 148 of the Act. - The Court noted the petitioner's failure to file a reply within the stipulated time and the absence of attachments to support their response. - The Court found that the petitioner's delayed response and lack of attachments hindered a proper examination of the issue. - The Court held that the petitioner can raise objections before the Appellate Authority but dismissed the petition. **Issue 2: Reopening Based on Audit Objections** - The petitioner argued that reopening the case based on audit objections constitutes a change of opinion. - The respondent contended that the judgments cited by the petitioner were not applicable to the current case. - The Court analyzed the precedents cited by the petitioner and found them distinguishable from the present case. - The Court highlighted the necessity of providing complete material to support legal contentions. - The Court refrained from deciding on the legality of reopening based on audit opinion due to insufficient factual foundation. **Issue 3: Impact of Missing Attachments** - The Court emphasized the importance of providing attachments to support claims and arguments. - The petitioner's failure to annex necessary documents hindered the Court's ability to adjudicate the matter effectively. - The Court noted that the petitioner cannot expect the Court to exercise its jurisdiction without complete and relevant attachments. - The Court dismissed the petition due to the lack of essential evidence and attachments. **Significant Holdings:** - The Court dismissed the petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the petitioner's failure to provide attachments and evidence to support their claims. - The Court refrained from deciding on the legality of reopening based on audit opinion, citing insufficient factual foundation and incomplete material provided by the petitioner. - The Court emphasized the importance of presenting complete and relevant attachments to support legal contentions in such cases.
|
