2012 (2) TMI 121 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of notice issued u/s 147/148 Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A) declaring that the notices u/s 147/148 were void as the words Pvt. Ltd. were missing asseseee filed declarations under VDIS 1997 in view of same notices were issued u/s 147/ 148 for A.Y. 1992-93 to 1995-96 Held that - It has not been held by the Tribunal or the CIT (A) that there was misnomer or misdescription because the words Private Limited were missing in 4 out of 5 notices though the name Jagat Novel Exhibitors were clear. Therefore, it has not resulted in misnomer or misdescription of parties which is fatal and makes the entire proceedings null and void Decided in favor of Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the reassessment framed in pursuance to the notice under Section 148 was valid.
3. Applicability of Section 292-B to cure defects in the notice.
4. Compliance with Section 249(4) regarding payment of taxes for appeal admission.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 to the respondent was valid, given that the words "Private Limited" were missing from the notice. The CIT(Appeals) held that the notice was vague and void due to this omission, and thus the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The tribunal confirmed this view, stating that the notice was not valid as it did not clearly identify the assessee.

2. Whether the Reassessment Framed in Pursuance to the Notice Under Section 148 was Valid:
The reassessment orders were challenged on the ground that the notices under Section 148 were not served correctly. The tribunal held that the notices were invalid due to the omission of "Private Limited," leading to the invalidation of the reassessment orders. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the omission did not cause any confusion or prejudice to the assessee, and thus the reassessment proceedings were valid.

3. Applicability of Section 292-B to Cure Defects in the Notice:
Section 292-B was discussed to determine if it could cure the defects in the notice. The High Court emphasized that Section 292-B aims to negate technical pleas due to defects or omissions in notices if they are in substance and effect in conformity with the Act. The court concluded that the omission of "Private Limited" did not cause any confusion or prejudice to the assessee, and thus the notice was valid under Section 292-B.

4. Compliance with Section 249(4) Regarding Payment of Taxes for Appeal Admission:
The tribunal had rejected the contention that the appeals before the CIT(A) were not maintainable due to non-payment of taxes under Section 249(4). The High Court noted that the CIT(A) had not examined whether there were good and sufficient reasons to exempt the assessee from paying advance tax under Section 249(4)(b). However, this was not the ground on which the High Court decided the appeals.

Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the omission of "Private Limited" in the notices did not invalidate the reassessment proceedings, as it did not cause any confusion or prejudice to the assessee. The questions framed in the appeals were answered in favor of the Revenue, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly. The parties were directed to appear before the CIT(A) for the hearing of the appeals on merits.

← Previous Next →