9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aying emphasis on the expression “as aforesaid” appeared to have some force. However, a closer reflection would reveal that “as aforesaid” is capable of two interpretations – narrow – textual one as is urged on behalf of the Revenue and a broader one. In the contention of Section 151(1), the proviso when it refers to an Assessing Officer, could also mean not merely an Assessing Officer below the rank of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner but also all Assessing Officers. The latter interpretation has been clearly followed by the Calcutta High Court – as well as the Revenue authorities. Yet one more reason which persuades us to reject the Revenue’s submission to disagree with the Calcutta High Court’s judgment which is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny assessment was completed on 30.03.2000 at a loss of ₹ 29,94,053/-. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act ) on 26.03.2003 leading to re-assessment. After rejecting the assessee s challenge to the re-opening, the AO proceeded to complete the re-assessment and added back substantial amounts under Section 68 of the Act (to the tune of ₹ 2,71,62,000/-) and completed the assessment. The CIT(A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee appealed contending that the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, was without jurisdiction as the concerned Assessing Officer (the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) proceeded to re-open the assessment without t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approval of a higher official provided it was within the period of four years from the end of the assessment year. It was urged that in cases of assessments completed by Assistant Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners, there was no need for obtaining approval of the Chief Commissioner/Commissioner. Emphasis was placed upon the expressions no such notice and Assessing Officer aforesaid to say that it was only in the event of completed assessments by AOs, below the rank of Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner that sanction or approval was necessary. It was submitted that this statutory position remained more or less unchanged except that in the case of Section 151(1), after the amendment of 1998 [Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998 with effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproval of the higher authorities was always necessary, by reason of Section 151(2). The Calcutta High Court after noticing, the provision which existed when it decided the case (i.e. on 13.02.1992), in relation to notice issued on 13.08.1991) observed as follows: .............. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is a sine qua non before issuance of a notice under section 148 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer may be of the rank of an Income-tax officer or the Astt. Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner, but when such notice is to be issued after the expiry of four years after the end of the relevant assessment year, the sanction of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is a pre-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned or re-opened with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner. However, where the Assessing Officer is the Deputy Commissioner himself, no sanction of the higher authority will be necessary for opening or re-opening a non-scrutiny case. 7.11 The new provisions of Section 149(1) regarding time limits and section 151 regarding issuing and sanctioning authorities for the issue of a notice under section 148 are explained in the following chart: Sl. No. Upto 4 years Beyond 4 years but upto 7 years Beyond 7 years but upto 10 years 1 2 3 4 1.Scrut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) (ii) Assessment can be re-opened only if the income which has escaped assessment is ₹ 50,000 or more for that year. (iii) Same as (i) in Col.(3). 7. It is quite obvious from a reading of the above circular that the Revenue authorities at a higher level existed and interpreted the amendments in the manner that the Calcutta High Court did. The arguments of the Revenue by laying emphasis on the expression as aforesaid appeared to have some force. However, a closer reflection would reveal that as aforesaid is capable of two interpretations narrow textual one as is urged on behalf of the Revenue and a broader one. In the contention of Section 151(1), the proviso when it refers to an Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
