2016 (12) TMI 118 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - Held tat - There is no justification in issuing the impugned notice and the power of issuance of such notice would not arise by virtue of Section 150(1) read with Explanation 2 of Section 153 of the Act. In the circumstances, we find that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1990-91.
2. Interpretation of "transfer" under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Validity of the notice issued beyond the period of limitation under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Applicability of Section 150(1) read with Explanation 2 of Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Whether the Tribunal's observation constituted a "finding" or "direction" under Section 150(1).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 21st July 2003, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1990-91. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued after the expiry of the statutory period, making it barred by limitation.

2. Interpretation of "Transfer" under Section 45(4):
The Assessing Officer (AO) initially contended that the allotment of the Ahmedabad branch to the retiring partners amounted to a transfer of capital assets, invoking Section 45(4) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the allotment was part of a family arrangement and did not constitute a "transfer" as per the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld this view, stating that the allotment did not amount to a transfer under Section 45(4).

3. Validity of the Notice Beyond Limitation Period:
The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible period of seven years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as stipulated by Section 149. The notice, issued on 21st July 2003, was beyond the period of limitation, which expired on 31st March 1995.

4. Applicability of Section 150(1) read with Explanation 2 of Section 153(3):
The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's observations in paragraph 8 constituted a "finding" under Section 150(1), allowing the reopening of the assessment beyond the standard limitation period. The Tribunal had observed that any capital gain on the retirement of partners would not arise in the assessment year 1991-92 but potentially in 1990-91.

5. Tribunal's Observation as a "Finding" or "Direction":
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's observation did not constitute a "finding" or "direction" necessary for the disposal of the appeal. The High Court agreed, stating that the Tribunal's observation was incidental and not essential for the appeal's resolution. Thus, it did not meet the criteria under Section 150(1) read with Explanation 2 of Section 153(3).

Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond the permissible period of limitation. The Tribunal's observation did not constitute a "finding" or "direction" under Section 150(1), and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was not justified. The Court made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and did not award any costs.