9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 351 - HC - Income TaxValidity of Reopening of assessment - notices issued u/s 148 - HELD THAT - As petitioner has challenged the notices issued u/s 148 only after the 2nd respondent had overruled its objections by way of speaking orders. Therefore the petitioner s challenge to the impugned notices issued u/s 148 cannot be countenanced. That apart if the petitioner had approached this Court immediately after the issuance of the impugned notices on the ground that the same were issued without jurisdiction these writ petitions would have been entertained on merits. Therefore these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Validity of Notices under Section 148 of the IT Act The relevant legal framework for this issue involves Section 148 of the IT Act, which allows the reopening of assessments if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Court considered the precedents set by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., which outlines the procedure for reopening assessments and handling objections. The Court found that the notices were issued in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court. The respondents followed the procedure by issuing notices under Section 148 and considering the petitioner's objections before overruling them through speaking orders. 2. Full and True Disclosure of Material Information The Court examined whether the petitioner had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for the original assessment. The Court noted that the reasons for reopening the assessment, as stated in the letter dated 19.08.2021, indicated that the petitioner had not fully disclosed all material information. This justified the reopening of the assessment. 3. Consideration of Petitioner's Objections The Court observed that the petitioner's objections to the reopening of assessments were duly considered by the respondents, who issued speaking orders dated 15.02.2022, 24.01.2022, and 14.02.2022, overruling the objections. The Court found that the respondents adhered to the procedural guidelines laid down in relevant case law, ensuring that the objections were addressed appropriately. 4. Timing and Justification of the Petitioner's Challenge The Court noted that the petitioner challenged the notices only after the respondents had overruled its objections. The Court held that had the petitioner approached the Court immediately after the issuance of the notices on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the writ petitions might have been entertained on merits. However, the delay in challenging the notices weakened the petitioner's position. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the reopening of assessments was justified due to the lack of full and true disclosure by the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the necessity for taxpayers to provide complete information during assessments. The Court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the delayed challenge and the procedural correctness of the respondents' actions. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the concerned Adjudicating Authority to proceed with the reopening of assessments for the relevant assessment years. The judgment reinforces the principle that taxpayers must ensure full and accurate disclosure of information during assessments and that procedural guidelines must be followed in reopening assessments. The Court's decision underscores the importance of timely legal challenges to procedural actions by tax authorities.
|
