Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (7) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ement of Johri Lal v. CIT (1973 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court) – petition decided against assesse. As observed the petitioner is already before the Dispute Resolution Panel. Undoubtedly, if the proceedings go against him before the Dispute Resolution Panel, it is always open for him to file an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal wherein all contentions available to him can be raised. - the reasons given by respondent No. 1 making him to believe to initiate or reopen the assessment for the year 2006-07 cannot be substituted by this court by giving its own reasons as to why the reasons given by him are incorrect. - - - - - Dated:- 8-3-2012 - AJIT J. GUNJAL J JUDGMENT Ajit J. Gunjal J.-The petitioner is questioning the ini .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roceedings under section 92CA of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. Suffice it to note that the provisions of the Act would contemplate nviting of objections for the second notice, which is issued. Accordingly, the petitioners filed their reply, a copy of which is produced annexure P. Respondent No. 1 pursuant to annexure L gave his reasons why he proposed to reopen the returns filed by the petitioner. The objections were filed by the petitioner to the said reasons and that objections were overruled pursuant to annexure C dated October 17, 2011. According to the petitioners, the very reopening of the assessment for the year 2006-07 is one without jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that it is not forthcoming in the reasons state .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bstance his case would be the court is required to consider the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Before considering the rival submissions it is required to note a few of the proceedings, which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. Apparently on the basis of the order at annexure C, the matter is referred to respondent No. 2, the Transfer Pricing Officer, who has passed an order, which is the subject-matter before the Dispute Resolution Panel. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the question of jurisdiction certainly cannot be urged before the Resolution Panel but certainly can be a subject matter of an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal if the explan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. It is open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. But, however, there is a cap on such reopening of the assessment inasmuch as it is required to be done within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case on hand it is not the case of the petitioners that reopening of the assessment is barred by statute. The only grievance is that there is no reason to believe to reopen the assessment, which has attained finality. In the case on hand it is to be noticed that section 147 of the Act is referable to income escaping assessment. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have reflected the present transactions in the returns filed by them. But, however, that had escaped the notice of the assessing authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ression 'reason to believe' postulates belief and the existence of reasons for that belief. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer : the forum of decision as to the existence of reasons and the belief is not in the mind of the Income-tax Officer .. The existence of the belief and the reasons for the belief, but not the sufficiency of the reasons, will be justiciable. The expression, therefore, predicates that the Income-tax Officer holds the belief induced by the existence of reasons for holding such belief." In the case on hand it is to be noticed that it is a case of income escaping the assessment. It may not be a tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates