9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 401 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings and legality of consequent order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B - Whether or not such legality of the re-assessment framed could be examined in appellate proceedings challenging the order passed u/s. 263? - HELD THAT - As decided in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI held that during the course of appellate proceedings against the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act the validity of the assessment order from which such proceedings have been originated could be examined. Thus in the present appellate proceedings against the order of the ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act the validity of the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act can be examined. Validity of reassessment proceedings - As the notice in the present case was dispatched/served upon the assessee on 01/04/2021 thus the same should be treated as notice u/s 148A(b) and AO should complete the consequent proceedings as provided u/s 148A - AO has proceeded to pass the order u/s 148 r.w.s 144B of the Act on the notice so issued u/s 148 on 31/03/2021 served upon the assessee on 01/04/2021. Thus in view of the order of Suman Jeet Agarwal 2022 (9) TMI 1384 - DELHI HIGH COURT we hold the order so passed without following the procedure prescribed u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and is invalid. Accordingly we quash the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act as the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act is already held as invalid. Thus grounds of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Legality of Challenging Reassessment Order in Appellate Proceedings against Section 263 Order The relevant legal framework involves the interpretation of Section 263 and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal considered precedents, notably the decision in Westlife Development Ltd., which established that the validity of an assessment order can be examined in appellate proceedings against a Section 263 order. The Court reasoned that if the original assessment order is deemed illegal or void due to jurisdictional defects, subsequent proceedings based on such an order would also be invalid. The Court cited several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, to support the principle that jurisdictional defects can be raised at any stage, even in collateral proceedings. 2. Applicability of Amended Provisions of Section 148A The Court examined the amended provisions effective from April 1, 2021, which require a specific procedure before issuing a notice under Section 148. The Court considered the timing of the digital signature and service of the notice, noting that although the notice was signed on March 31, 2021, it was served on April 1, 2021. The Court referenced the decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which mandates that notices served after the amendment date should be treated as show cause notices under Section 148A(b). 3. Validity of Reassessment Order under Section 147 The Court found that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the amended procedure under Section 148A, rendering the reassessment order invalid. The Court relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Suman Jeet Agarwal, which categorized such notices and provided guidance on their treatment. The Court concluded that the reassessment order was bad in law due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements. 4. Impact on Revisionary Order under Section 263 The Court held that since the reassessment order under Section 147 was invalid, the revisionary order under Section 263 could not stand. The Tribunal cited various cases where it was established that a void assessment order cannot be the subject of revision under Section 263, as it lacks a valid legal platform. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's significant holdings include:
The final determination was that the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the revisionary order passed under Section 263 was quashed due to the invalidity of the reassessment order. The other grounds of appeal were deemed infructuous and not adjudicated upon.
|
