1991 (3) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to garnishee order under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Validity of order treating individuals as an association of persons (AOP)
Challenging notices under section 147/148 of the Act
Compliance with provisions of section 186 of the Act before issuing notices
Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officers in issuing notices

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, challenged a garnishee order under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after certain stocks were seized during a raid on its premises. The High Court quashed the order. Subsequently, the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner treated certain individuals as an association of persons (AOP) under section 132(5) of the Act. Respondents objected to this order, and notices were issued under section 147/148 of the Act for assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86, alleging income escapement. The petitioner sought reasons for the belief of escapement but received no response, leading to petitions challenging the notices.

In a previous case, the court held that the Income-tax Officer must comply with section 186 of the Act before treating entities as an AOP. The court emphasized the necessity of serving a notice under section 186 before proceeding with such classification. In the present case, the notice under section 148 did not provide reasons for the belief of income escapement, and no compliance with section 186 was evident. Consequently, the court quashed the notice dated March 15, 1990, and all related proceedings initiated based on that notice, citing lack of jurisdiction.

The court reiterated that the absence of reasons in the notice under section 148 and non-compliance with section 186 were fatal to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officers. As a result, the notice and all subsequent proceedings were deemed void ab initio. The petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the security deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner upon verification, concluding the matter in favor of the petitioner.