9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 958 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - An order u/s 245D(4) already been passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) - Scope of harmonious construction - whether the order of the ITSC is final in all respects for the concerned AY? - HELD THAT - As seen that the order of the ITSC is deemed to be conclusive for all the matters pertaining the concerned AY for which the settlement application has been accepted and processed by the ITSC. In case, the Income Tax Department is not satisfied with the computation of income by the ITSC for the relevant AY, the same could only be assailed in accordance with the provisions contemplated under Section 245D(6) read with Section 245D(7) of the Act. The legislative scheme envisaged for ITSC is self-contained in nature and the intent appears to be to facilitate a mutually satisfactory arrangement which could not be reopened, unless explicitly covered under the textual exceptions of fraud or misrepresentation. In the instant case, the application of the petitioner was accepted and the proceedings were initiated therein by the ITSC after the second search and seizure operation was conducted by the respondent on 05.03.2013. Thus, undoubtedly, since the ITSC was already held up with the concerned AY, including the aspects raised by the respondent in the present petition, the AO cannot be allowed to exercise jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings under the guise of Section 147/148 of the Act for the relevant AY in consideration. As already settled allowing the AO to proceed with the impugned notices and order for reopening assessment for the concerned AY would create a situation of downright chaos and vagueness. Put otherwise, it would tantamount to simultaneous existence of two concomitant and materially different assessment orders for the same AY, which is completely impermissible as per the provisions of the Act. The issue regarding the impermissibility of two assessment orders for a particular AY was also highlighted in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT Therefore, if the respondent was apprehensive of the fact that the petitioner had suppressed its income before the ITSC, it ought to have resorted to the remedy contained in Chapter XIX-A of the Act itself on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. The concept of fraud has been jurisprudentially recognized as a concept of wide import, and thus, availability of a challenge on the ground of fraud could have provided an effective remedy to the respondent, if so justified. Evidently, the respondent has failed to seek recourse to such a remedy and rather, preferred an appeal before this Court on altogether different aspects as compared to the ones raised in the present petition. In any case, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2017 2017 (9) TMI 1721 - DELHI HIGH COURT So far as the decision relied upon by the respondent in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. 2023 (5) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT is concerned, in the given facts and circumstances, the same cannot be construed to be an authority to override the mandate of Section 245-I of the Act. Sections 150 and 245-I of the Act are provisions of equal standing and a conflict between the two must be resolved by resorting to the principle of harmonious construction. One of the foremost considerations of harmonious construction is to preserve the essence and meaning of both the provisions, and to not let either provision fall at the expense of the other. If the settlement arrived at by ITSC is allowed to be reopened on grounds, other than those expressly provided for, it would effectively render the entire mandate of the ITSC as vulnerable and the commitment of the finality of a settlement would stand compromised. It is this legislative sanctity of ITSC that provides it a special status under the Act. Since the decision of the ITSC qua the issues in the present petition has already attained finality, therefore, taking a cue from the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal 2010 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT the reliance placed by the respondent on Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. 2023 (5) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT to proceed with the reassessment proceedings, is completely unjustifiable and unsustainable, in the given factual matrix of the petition. In view of the aforesaid, we quash the impugned notice alongwith corrigendum and the impugned order of even date.
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of Interference in ITSC Orders: Determination of the scope of interference in the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in light of the interplay between Section 245-I and Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Reopening of Assessment Proceedings: Legality of reopening assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act after a settlement order by ITSC. 3. Finality of ITSC Orders: Whether the ITSC's order dated 16.09.2016 is final and conclusive for the concerned Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 4. Applicability of Section 150: Whether Section 150(1) of the Act authorizes the reopening of assessment proceedings based on findings or directions in court orders. Summary: Scope of Interference in ITSC Orders: The petitioner challenged the reopening of assessment proceedings for AY 2007-08, arguing that the issues were already settled by the ITSC's order dated 16.09.2016. The court examined whether the ITSC's order is conclusive and prevents reopening under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner contended that once ITSC is seized of an assessment, it can only be reopened as per the procedure in Section 245 of the Act. Reopening of Assessment Proceedings: The petitioner argued that the issues on which the respondent seeks to reopen the assessment were duly considered by the ITSC, and therefore, the respondent lacks authority to reopen the assessment. The respondent countered that the issues were not considered by the ITSC and thus, the reopening is justified. Finality of ITSC Orders: The court noted that the ITSC's order is final and conclusive as per Section 245-I of the Act, which states that no matter covered by such order shall be reopened in any proceeding under the Act or any other law, except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation. The court observed that the issues raised by the respondent were indeed considered by the ITSC, and the finality of the ITSC's order cannot be disturbed unless there is fraud or misrepresentation. Applicability of Section 150: The respondent relied on Section 150(1) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. to justify the reopening. The court, however, found that the reliance on Section 150(1) and the Abhisar Buildwell decision does not override the mandate of Section 245-I. The court emphasized that Sections 150 and 245-I are of equal standing, and a harmonious construction must preserve the essence of both provisions. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned notice and corrigendum dated 30.11.2023, and the impugned order of the same date, holding that the reopening of the assessment proceedings was unjustifiable and unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed, reinforcing the finality of the ITSC's order for the concerned AY.
|
