Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court)

ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 4, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (blue_moon_1432_158BC_block_assessment_notice.pdf)

Issue of s. 143 (2) notice is mandatory for block assessment proceedings. Disclosed items cannot be assessed in block assessment. Circulars are binding on the revenue.

Chapter XIV-B provides that where a search u/s 132 is conducted, the AO shall determine the undisclosed income for the block period. S. 158 BC(b) provides that in making the block assessment the provisions of s. 143 (2) shall “so far as may be, apply”. The Supreme Court had to consider whether a block assessment order passed without service of notice on the assessee u/s 143(2) within the prescribed period of time was valid. HELD, deciding in favour of the assessee:

(i) While notice u/s 143 (2) is not necessary if the AO accepts the return as filed, the notice within the prescribed time is mandatory if the AO proposes to make an assessment u/s 158BC r.w.s143 (3). Omission to issue notice u/s 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, the requirement of notice u/s 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. If the intention of the legislature was to exclude the provisions of s. 143 (2), the legislature would have indicated that.

(ii) In Circular No.717 dated 14.8.1995 the CBDT has directed that the AO “shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period and the provisions of s. 142, sub-s (2) and (3) of s. 143 and s. 144 shall apply accordingly”. This circular clarifies the requirement of law in respect of service of notice u/s 143 (2). The circular is binding on the department though not on the Court.

(iii) A search is the sine qua non for a block assessment under Ch. XIV-B. A block assessment is in addition to regular assessments proceedings and not in substitution thereof. The scope and ambit of a block assessment is limited to materials unearthed during search and can only be done on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition.

Note: The judgements in Bandana Gogoi 289 ITR 28 (Gau), Pawan Gupta 181 TM 299 (Del) & Mudra Nanavati (Bom) are impliedly approved while that of the Special Bench in Nawal Kishore & Sons 87 ITD 407 (Luck) (SB) is impliedly overruled. On the scope of a block assessment, Vikram Doshi 256 ITR 129 & Shaw Wallace 238 ITR 13 (Cal) are impliedly approved. S. 292BB inserted w.e.f 1.4.2008 provides that despite non-service etc of notice, the proceedings shall be valid if the assessee has co-operated and not raised an objection before completion of the proceeding. This has been held not to be retrospective in Kuber Tobacco 119 ITD 273 (SB) (Del)

Related Posts:

  • Blue Chip Developers (P) Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2, New Delhi while granting approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act in Column no. 12 has only mentioned that “YES”, which establish that the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without…
  • ACIT vs. Marico Ltd (Supreme Court) The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be…
  • ACIT vs. Bharat V. Patel (Supreme Court) The word “Perquisite” in common parlance may be defined as any perk or benefit attached to an employee or position besides salary or remuneration. Broadly speaking, these are usually noncash benefits given by an employer to an employee in addition to entitled salary or remuneration. It may be said that…
  • Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) In the premises, we hold that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under subsection (1)…
  • Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case…
  • Dalmia Power Limited vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) The more advisable course from the point of view of the Revenue would be to make one assessment on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both of Transferor or Transferee Companies and also to make separate protective assessments on both the Transferor and Transferee Companies separately. There…

Related Judgements

  1. M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons … M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme…
  2. CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) 

    In the case of a chit fund following the ‘completed contract method of accounting’ and offering income at the end of the chit, held, approving the method: (i) Recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of … CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) Read…
  3. Malayala Manorama vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The AO has no jurisdiction u/s 115J of the Act to go behind the Profit & loss account of the assessee and to make adjustments therein beyond what is expressly provided in s. 115J. An assessee is entitled to provide for depreciation in its books at rates which are…
  4. Shiv Kant Jha vs. UOI (Supreme Court) 

    Against the judgement of the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706, a review petition was filed. That petition was dismissed by a division bench of 2 judges. Upon that dismissal, a curative petition was filed. That curative petition has been dismissed by a bench…
  5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health (Supreme Court – Larger Bench) 

    the amendment to Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c), though made with effect from 1st April 2003, should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective.Read more ›