9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1949-50. Interpretation of provisions under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Application for amendment of petition regarding time-barred assessment under the old Act. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1949-50, issued on two separate occasions in March 1966. The Income-tax Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on information received regarding undisclosed income of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that conditions precedent for exercising power under section 147 read with section 148 were not met, and subsequently sought an amendment to the petition based on the time-barred nature of the alleged escaped income under the old Act. The petitioner argued that under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Officer's power to issue a notice for reopening proceedings was limited if eight years had passed since the relevant assessment year, unless the escaped income exceeded one lakh rupees. The petitioner's counsel highlighted discrepancies in the amount of alleged escaped income and contended that even at its highest, it fell short of the required threshold. Referring to a letter and the petitioner's submissions, it was established that the escaped income did not meet the statutory threshold for reopening proceedings under the old Act. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision to assert that the right to reopen assessment, if barred under the old Act before the new Act came into force, could not be revived. The court noted that the Income-tax Officer failed to establish that the escaped income exceeded the statutory limit, rendering the notice under section 148 invalid. The court held that without evidence of the income exceeding the threshold, the notice was illegal and ordered its withdrawal. The court allowed the application, making the rule absolute and issuing a writ of mandamus to recall the notices under section 148. The court also issued a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondents from acting on the notices. No costs were awarded in the matter.
|
