Search Results For: 148


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 11, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: As the Act provides for sanction by the JCIT, the sanction by the CIT does not meet the requirement of the Act and the reopening notice is without jurisdiction. The fact that the sanction is granted by a superior officer is not relevant

The reopening proceedings under section 148 are bad as necessary sanction/approval had not been obtained in terms of section 151 of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal records that the sanction for issuing the impugned notice had been obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax when, in terms of section 151, the sanction had to be obtained from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, in the absence of sanction/approval being obtained from the appropriate authority as mandated by the Act, the Tribunal held that the reopening notice itself is without jurisdiction

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 2, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus share capital/ premium: If the PCIT, while granting approval for issue of notice u/s. 148, has only mentioned “YES”, it establishes that the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. On this count the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed (All imp judgements referred)

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 due application of mind and therefore, on this account the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be 6 quashed.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: August 30, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 14, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: It is mandatory for the AO to follow the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC) and to pass a separate order to deal with the objections. The disposal of the objections in the assessment order is not sufficient compliance with the procedure. The failure to follow the procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires (Bayer Material Science 382 ITR 333 (Bom) & KSS Petron (Bom) followed)

The moot question is, therefore, the disposal of the objections by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 26th March, 2004 constitutes sufficient compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) or, whether it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to have first disposed of the Appellant’s objections by passing a speaking order and only upon communication of the same to the Appellants, proceeded to reopen the assessment

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 9, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148/292B: The officer recording the reasons u/s 148(2) for reopening the assessment & the officer issuing notice u/s 148(1) has to be the same person. If the reasons are recorded by the DCIT but the notice is issued by the ITO, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. The s. 148 notice is a jurisdictional notice. Any inherent defect therein cannot be cured u/s 292B. The fact that the assessee participated in the proceedings is irrelevant

Since the notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein cannot be cured under section 292B of the Act. A notice under section 148(1) of the Act would be a valid notice if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records the reasons for reopening the assessment as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 148 and thereafter the same officer namely the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issues the notice under section 148(1) of the Act.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 31, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 148, 282, Rule 127: Mere issue of a s. 148 notice is not sufficient. Service is essential. If the postal authorities return the notice unserved, the Dept has to serve under Rule 127(2) using one of the four sources of address (such as PAN address, Bank address etc). The failure to do so renders the reassessment proceedings invalid (All imp judgements referred)

In terms of Rule 127 and in particular, sub-rule (2) therefore, having regard to the further proviso therein, the Department had to deliver the notice of reassessment at the petitioner’s address given by her to the bank where her account was maitnained. No such steps were taken. Service of notice, therefore, was not complete. In absence of service of notice before the last date envisaged under section 149 of the Act for such purpose, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 3, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: Even in a case where the return is accepted u/s 143(1) without scrutiny, the fundamental requirement of income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment must be satisfied. Mere non-disclosure of receipt would not automatically imply escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment. There has to be something beyond an unintentional oversight or error on the part of the assessee in not disclosing such receipt in the return of income. In other words, even after non-disclosure, if the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment referring only to the non disclosure of the receipt in the return of income. The attempt of further verification would amount to rowing inquiry

Despite such difference in the scheme between a return which is accepted under section 143(1) of the Act as compared to a return of which scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act is framed, the basic requirement of section 147 of the Act that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to 3 (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) OS WP 1230-19.doc tax has escaped assessment is not done away with. Section 147 of the Act permits the Assessing Officer to assess, reassess the income or recompute the loss or depreciation if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. This power to reopen assessment is available in either case, namely, while a return has been either accepted under section 143(1) of the Act or a scrutiny assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Act. A common requirement in both of cases is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: The fact that the assessee did not disclose the material is not relevant if the AO was otherwise aware of it. If the AO had the information during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source, but chooses not to utilize it, he cannot allege that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts & reopen the assessment (Scope of Explanation 1 to S. 147 explained)

As per this Explanation thus, production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 147. Here is not a case where the Assessee is seeking to rely on a disclosure which the Revenue can seek to bring within the fold of the said Explanation. Here is a case where the Department already had collected certain documents and materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. If the Assessing Officer did not, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 148 Reopening: As per settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid. The fact that the AO was not informed of the death before issue of notice is irrelevant. Consequently, the s. 148 notice is set aside and order of assessment stands annulled (Alamelu Veerappan 257 TM 72 (Mad) followed)

There are several judgments of different High Courts holding that the notice or reopening of assessment is invalid in law. It is not necessary to refer to all the judgments on the point. Suffice it to say, as per the settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 8, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening: High Court should decide (i) validity of s. 148 notice where assessment is made u/s 143(1) & not u/s 143(3), (ii) whether notice can be said to be based on change of opinion if there is no foundation to form any such opinion, (iii) Whether requirements of s. 148 are satisfied, namely, that it contains the facts constituting the "reasons to believe" and furnishes the necessary details for assessing the escaped income and (iv) whether finding recorded by ITAT on merits is legally sustainable

The objections raised by the respondent (assessee) to the notice contending inter alia that since the impugned notice was based on “change of the opinion” and hence bad in law was upheld by the ITAT resulting in allowing the respondent’s appeal and further by dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by the High Court. The Revenue has felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing their appeal in limine and has filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: If the AO is of the opinion that the issue requires verification, it tantamounts to fishing or roving inquiry. He is not permitted to reopen merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material. Even if the question of taxing interest income under the DTAA was not in the mind of the AO when he passed the assessment, he cannot reopen if there is no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts

If during the assessment of the later assessment year, the Assessing officer collects or chances upon new material which may have bearing on the assessment of the assessee, and in case where the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years, he can also establish lack of true and full disclosures on the part of the assessee, it may be open for him to reopen assessment of the earlier year. However, merely because in the later year, the Assessing Officer takes a different view on the basis of similar material, which may have been collected during such process, would not permit him to reopen the assessment