9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , were clearly barred by time. Thus, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notices. - - - - - Dated:- 16-3-2004 - Judge(s) : RAJESH BALIA. JUDGMENT Rajesh Balia J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The case raises a short question. The assessee was issued a notice on March 28, 2003 for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1996-97, after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year of which reassessment is sought to be initiated. The assessee raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings as they were barred by time. On the assessee's request, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were communicated to him vide communi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexus with formation of belief is subject to judicial review. Secondly, the reasons so recorded also have a direct bearing on this question of limitation which governs the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147. Limitation within which action under section 147 can be initiated is governed by section 149 read with the proviso to section 147. The proviso to section 147 reads as under: "Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso at least Rs. 60,00,000 (approx.) represented the principal amount towards the cost of the machinery. Therefore, because of a wrong claim, the income chargeable to tax approx. 60,00,000 has escaped assessment." A perusal of the aforesaid reasons goes to show that there was no satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer that escapement of income chargeable to tax is believed to be on account of failure on the part of the assessee to file returns or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year 1996-97. Apparently, the reasons recorded do not lay the foundation, so as to claim the extended period of limitation under section 149(1)(b) which can be invoked only in cases falling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed, when it is remembered that people often differ as regards what inferences should be drawn from given facts, it will be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences- whether of facts of law-he would draw from the primary facts. If from primary facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that the assessee should have drawn any particular inference and communicated it to the assessing authority. How could an assessee be charged with failure to communicate an inference, which he might or might not have drawn." In the present case, the petitioner is not challenging the sufficiency or adequacy of material, on the basis of which, belief has been found but his case is on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
