9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 842 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w section 148 failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts or not - Held that - The reasons in support of the impugned notices do not in any manner indicate failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment - the reasons recorded that the original claim for deduction made by the Petitioner for AY 1998-99 was for ₹ 1.66 Crores and the AO allowed deduction of only ₹ 1.64 Crores while the claim for deduction in AY 1999-2000 was ₹ 2.69 Crores and the AO allowed deduction of ₹ 2.39 Crores in Sesa Goa Ltd. v. CIT 2004 (5) TMI 54 - BOMBAY High Court it was held that a subsequent decision cannot justify re-opening of an assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant AYs unless there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for Assessment - This is a jurisdictional requirement thus, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts for assessment thus, the impugned notices dated 25th January, 2006 and subsequent impugned orders dated 7th March, 2006 for Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are not sustainable Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Jurisdictional challenge to the re-assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. 3. Alleged failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 4. The impact of the Supreme Court's decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy C.I.T. on the re-assessment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notices Issued under Section 148: The Petitioner challenged the notices dated 25th January 2006, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The notices were issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. The jurisdictional requirement for issuing such notices is a failure on the part of the Petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The Petitioner argued that the grounds furnished in support of the impugned notices did not indicate any such failure. The Court found that the reasons in support of the impugned notices did not indicate any failure on the part of the Petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. 2. Jurisdictional Challenge to the Re-assessment Orders: The Petitioner argued that the re-assessment orders dated 7th March 2006 were passed without disposing of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons in support of the impugned notices, which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. The Court held that the re-assessment orders were passed without disposing of the Petitioner's objections, thus violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 3. Alleged Failure to Disclose Fully and Truly All Material Facts: The Petitioner contended that there was no failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The Court observed that the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notices did not indicate any such failure. The Court referred to its previous rulings in Sesa Goa Ltd. v. CIT and Voltas Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, which held that a subsequent decision cannot justify re-opening of an assessment beyond four years unless there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for assessment. 4. Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy C.I.T.: The Respondent-Revenue argued that the decision of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy C.I.T. justified the re-opening of the assessment. The Court acknowledged that while a subsequent decision of a court may give rise to an inference of escapement of income, the fundamental question of whether there has been a failure to disclose must still be addressed. The Court found that there was no such failure on the part of the Petitioner. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the impugned notices dated 25th January 2006 and the subsequent re-assessment orders dated 7th March 2006 for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were not sustainable. The Rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in both the Petitions, and no order as to costs was issued.
|
