{"id":1139,"date":"2009-11-13T08:50:30","date_gmt":"2009-11-13T08:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=1139"},"modified":"2009-11-13T08:50:30","modified_gmt":"2009-11-13T08:50:30","slug":"cit-vs-peerchand-ratanlal-baid-gauhati-high-court-even-block-assessments-can-be-reopened-us-147148","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-peerchand-ratanlal-baid-gauhati-high-court-even-block-assessments-can-be-reopened-us-147148\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Peerchand Ratanlal Baid (Gauhati High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (peerchand_ratanlal_block_assessment_reopening.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Even block assessments can be reopened u\/s 147\/148 <\/strong><\/p>\n

The AO passed a block assessment order u\/s 158BC by which he assessed the undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 24.37 L. Subsequently, he passed an order by which he added a further sum of Rs. 13.66 L to the said undisclosed income without issuing a notice u\/s 148. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the AO could not have made the addition without reopening the block assessment u\/s 147<\/strong>. On appeal by the Revenue, the High Court upheld the Tribunal\u2019s order. However, on the question whether the AO had jurisdiction to issue notice u\/s 148 in respect of a block assessment made under Chapter XIV-B in view of the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in Cargo Clearing Agency<\/strong> 307 ITR 1, HELD dissenting <\/em><\/strong>from the judgement:<\/p>\n

The view of the Gujarat High Court that while s. 147 permits re-assessment of income that has escaped assessment for any assessment year, assessment under Chapter XIV-B is for a block period of 10\/6 years without reference to any particular assessment year and that, therefore, s. 147 does not apply to a block assessment cannot be accepted<\/em> in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Suresh N. Gupta<\/a><\/strong> 297 ITR 322 where it was held that the other provisions of the Act would be applicable to the scheme under Chapter XIV-B, if no conflict arises upon such application. The provisions of Chapter XIV prescribing the period of limitation for reopening of assessments apply to block assessments under Chapter XIV-B and there is no conflict between the two.<\/p>\n

\nNote:<\/p>\n

(i) The ITAT Bombay Bench has taken the view in Western India Bakers<\/strong><\/a> 87 ITD 607 that a block assessment cannot <\/em>be reopened u\/ss 147 & 148. <\/p>\n

(ii) Suresh Gupta<\/strong><\/a> 297 ITR 322 (SC) has been doubted and referred to a larger Bench in Vatika Township<\/strong><\/a> 314 ITR 338 (SC).\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The view of the Gujarat High Court that while s. 147 permits re-assessment of income that has escaped assessment for any assessment year, assessment under Chapter XIV-B is for a block period of 10\/6 years without reference to any particular assessment year and that, therefore, s. 147 does not apply to a block assessment cannot be accepted<\/em> in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Suresh N. Gupta<\/a><\/strong> 297 ITR 322 where it was held that the other provisions of the Act would be applicable to the scheme under Chapter XIV-B, if no conflict arises upon such application. The provisions of Chapter XIV prescribing the period of limitation for reopening of assessments apply to block assessments under Chapter XIV-B and there is no conflict between the two.<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}