9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 765 - HC - Income TaxReasons to believe for re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax act Held that - Relying upon the judgment in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court ; Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 2010 (1) TMI 11 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it is held that the language of Section 147 of the Act stipulates that there should be reasons coupled with the belief and both the conditions have to be satisfied. Law requires that there should be rational connection between the reason and the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Reasons to believe as recorded in the present case are vague, unreasonable, incomplete and irrational. No rational or reasonable person can form or decipher from the reasons that income had escaped assessment - Petitioner is entitled to succeed - Impugned order dated 23rd August, 2007 issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03 is hereby set aside Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy and correctness of the "Reasons to Believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act for issuing reassessment notice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The petitioner challenged the validity of the reassessment notice dated 29th March 2007 for the assessment year 2002-03. The court noted discrepancies between two notices dated 24th March 2007 and 29th March 2007, both related to the same assessment year but addressed to different locations. The court accepted the Revenue's stand that the notice dated 24th March 2007 was the relevant one as it was issued first. The second notice was issued as a matter of abundant caution to ensure service. 2. Adequacy and correctness of the "Reasons to Believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer: The court scrutinized the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing the reassessment notice. The reasons communicated by Ms. Nishtha Tiwari, Assistant Director of Income Tax, were found to be inchoate and based on mere surmise. The reasons failed to clearly define why the bifurcation of Rs. 605.34 lakhs and Rs. 436.53 lakhs was relevant or how Article 5(3) of the DTAA between India and Korea impacted the taxability. The reasons did not show any nexus between the facts recorded and the alleged escapement of income. The court emphasized that the reasons to believe must have a rational connection and should not be extraneous or irrelevant. The reasons recorded in this case were deemed vague, unreasonable, incomplete, and irrational, failing to meet the statutory preconditions. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act for issuing reassessment notice: The court examined whether the procedural requirements under Section 151 were met. It was noted that the reasons to believe were recorded before 19th March 2007 and approval from the Additional Director of Income Tax was received on 23rd March 2007. However, the court found discrepancies in the records and noted that the reasons to believe were not available in the assessment file or the office of the Additional Director of Income Tax. The court criticized the poor record maintenance by the respondents and highlighted the need for digitizing records. The court reiterated that the reasons to believe must be recorded before issuing the notice and must be germane and relevant. Conclusion: The court held that the reassessment notice and the impugned order were invalid due to the inadequacy and irrationality of the reasons recorded. The reassessment notice dated 24th March 2007/29th March 2007 and the impugned order dated 23rd August 2007 were set aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
|
