2005 (10) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

Notices issued under section 148 - since the reopening of the assessment is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is sought to be justified by ignoring the binding decisions in our opinion the reopening of the assessment is in gross abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. - In the result the petition is allowed. The notices issued under section 148(1) are quashed and set aside

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01; rejection of objections by the assessee; legality of reasons for reopening assessments; conditions for invoking jurisdiction to reopen assessment; justification for reopening based on TDS evidence, dividend income, processing charges, and industrial activity.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay considered two writ petitions challenging notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The court noted that even though the objections raised by the assessee had been rejected by the Assessing Officer, the reasons for reopening the assessments were identical, leading to a common judgment for both petitions.

The court emphasized that the power conferred under section 147 of the Income-tax Act for reopening concluded assessments is wide but cannot be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily. The belief that income has escaped assessment must be reasonable and not merely a change of opinion. The court highlighted that an assessment order passed after detailed discussion cannot be reopened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there are specific reasons justifying it.

Regarding the specific grounds for reopening the assessment, the court analyzed each one in detail. For instance, in the case of TDS evidence, the court found that the assessee had indeed furnished relevant details, rendering the reopening of assessment on this ground unjustified. Similarly, for the issue of dividend income, the court concluded that the reasons for reopening were based on suspicion and presumption rather than concrete evidence, making it impermissible in law.

Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of processing charges received by the assessee for job work and their inclusion for deduction under relevant sections of the Act. The court noted that the Assessing Officer had rejected objections without considering a binding decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which was deemed highly deplorable conduct.

In light of the above analysis, the court held that the reopening of the assessments was based on conjectures and surmises, ignoring binding decisions and constituting a gross abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the notices issued under section 148 of the Act, and made the rule absolute with no order as to costs.