2015 (1) TMI 482 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening - whether there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts in the course of assessment proceedings? - Held that - Invoking proviso to Section 147, the pre-condition is that there should be an assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143, which is absent in the present case. As it is not disputed by the respondent that the return was filed on 31.10.01 and no order has been passed on the said assessment. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that proviso to Section 147 of the Act does not get attracted. The Tribunal, admittedly, fell in error in holding that it is a case falling under proviso to Section 147. Thus the objection raised by the Department is sustained. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of reopening assessment and failure to disclose material facts.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the Revenue challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed their appeal. The Revenue raised questions of law regarding the validity of the reopening of assessment and the failure of the assessee to disclose material facts during the assessment proceedings.

2. The respondent filed the original return of income for Assessment Year 2001-2002, declaring a total income. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on the grounds of income escaping assessment. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) upheld the notice, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was issued well after the four-year period from the impugned assessment order, citing Section 147 and its proviso.

3. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of the assessee failing to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, as required by the proviso to Section 147. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the notice being beyond the permissible time frame of four years.

4. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order, arguing that the pre-condition for invoking the proviso to Section 147 was an assessment under Section 143(3), which was absent in this case. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the proviso.

5. The Court noted that no assessment had been made on the return filed by the assessee, indicating that the proviso to Section 147 did not apply. The Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the proviso was erroneous, and upheld the Revenue's objection on this legal ground.

6. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a reconsideration of all issues on merits, without delving into the questions of law raised by the Revenue.

7. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed by way of remand, with no order as to costs.