9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years of the close of the assessment order is valid or not. Thus sufficient force in the argument of the petitioner that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings relevant to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 after more than four years is clearly barred by time. In the result, all the three writ petitions succeed and are allowed. - Writ Tax No.-1086 of 2007, Writ Tax No.-1156 of 2007, Writ Tax No.-1157 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2013 - Prakash Krishna And Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),JJ. For the Petitioner Counsel : Nikhil Agrawal,Dhruv Agrawal For the Respondent : S. C. JUDGMENT (Delivered by Prakash Krishna, J.) These three writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Out of all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections challenging the very initiation of reassessment proceedings on various grounds. The objections having been dismissed by the order dated 29th of June, 2007, impugned in these petitions. Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. Awasthi, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The only point urged before us is that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is barred by time. Therefore, the proceedings for reassessment should be dropped. The controversy centres around the interpretation of section 149 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of section 149 is reproduced below:- Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can issue a notice unless the case falls under the clause (b) (c ). Clause-(b) gives extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment amounts to or is likely to amount one Lakh of rupees or more for that year. The argument is that in the case on hand, there is no material before the department to show that the income which is said to have been escaped, amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.1 Lakhs or more. Attention of the Court was invited towards its earlier order dated 7th of August, 2007, which is reproduced below:- "The original record of the sanction by the Addl. Commissioner has been produced by learned counsel for the Income Tax Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s escaped the assessment. In the counter affidavit, no material has been disclosed therein to show that at the time of seeking sanction for extension of period of limitation as provided for under section 149 the Assessing Authority or the sanctioning authority had any material in their possession that the income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.1 Lakh or more. At this stage, we may consider the reasons recorded by the Income Tax Officer for reopening the assessment. The same is reproduced below:- "During the Assessment Year 2000-2001 the assessee Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta sold the property (land) situated at 13-D Tashkant Marg, Allahabad after converting leasehold land into freehol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner, Income Tax, statutory requirement stands fulfilled vide para-3 of the order which is reproduced below:- "You have also objected that it is not mentioned in the reasons of taking action U/S 148 that the escaped income is more that 100000/-. In this connection this to inform that it is mentioned in notice U/S148 itself that the notice is being issued after proper sanction of Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax. This fulfills the requirement of law, your have provided the reasons of initiating action U/S148 not computation of income. The computation of income will be provided after proper hearing giving proper opportunities to be heard." The stand of the department as is evident from the above quoted paragraph has no legs to sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and others, 259 ITR, page 18. 2. Dr. H.S. Bawa Vs. CIT, 25 Taxman, 15 (P H). 3. Vikram Kothari HUF Vs. State of U.P., 10 Taxman, 280 (Alld). 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, 30 Taxman, 211 (Bom). 5. A.C.I.T. Vs. Rajesh Jhavri, 291 ITR, Page 500 (SC). 6. C.C.I.T. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor, 147 Taxman, 12 (Alld). 7. Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, New Delhi, 93, ITR 505. 8. Deep Chand Daga Vs. I.T.O., 77 ITR, 661 (MP). 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 294 ITR 620 (Mad.) None of the judgments referred to above have any connection to the point in issue even remotely. They relate either to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
