Income Tax : Explore the legality of issuing a second notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. Unders...
Income Tax : Explore the latest changes in Income Tax laws, including extinguishment of demands, return processing, form amendments, exemptions...
Income Tax : Delve into the provisions of Income Tax Act Sections 153A & 153C, governing assessments after search or requisition. Learn from co...
Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Income Tax : Learn about Section 147 to 153 Income Escaping Assessment and Reopening of Cases Under Income Tax Act, 1961. Get guidance on the p...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, notices for assessment/reassessment of income of old cases of more than six years fr...
Income Tax : One of the key sources of dispute is the existing arrangement for follow up on audit objections by Internal Audit Party and the Re...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Reassessment cannot be solely based on a reevaluation of exi...
Income Tax : Assessee was engaged in diamond manufacturing, trading, and windmill power generation, had claimed deductions under sections 35DD ...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur order on Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs ITO. ITAT sets aside Income Tax reassessment completed without providing fair & reason...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of Karrm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT at ITAT Mumbai. Learn why ITAT ruled that non-filing of GST b...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
Corporate Law : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association (W.B.) Unit Date: 02.02.2023. To The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, W...
Income Tax : CBDT directed that cases reopened u/s 147/148A in consonance with Judgement of SC in case of UoI vs. Ashish Agarwal & CBDT instruc...
It was held by the Third Member that section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that a reassessment notice issued u/s 148 in a case where the original assessment was made u/s 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion,
On going through the impugned Order of the High Court, we find that no reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the re-opening of assessment. In the circumstances, the impugned Order of the High Court dated 23rd December, 2011, in Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
Admittedly, the return was processed u/s 143(1), as per the assessment order, on 15.05.2002 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2008. Therefore, as per section 151, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain the sanction of Joint Commissioner of Income tax as four years had lapsed from the end of relevant assessment year.
In the present case, we find that not only is there a change of opinion but also the re-opening is barred by limitation inasmuch as the condition that the escapement of income must have resulted from the failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts, has not been satisfied. The impugned order dated 27.10.2010 merely glosses over the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to limitation.
Only primary fact was that the assessee had earned interest income. We are, however, of the opinion that in the context of the close connection between the petitioner and Aditya Medisales, the fact that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act and the interest income received from the sister concern had relevance to the provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Act, primary facts were not on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had placed all the relevant records, including the construction agreement, before the passing of the original assessment order. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had suppressed certain material facts, due to which the original assessment order, passed by the respondent is liable to be re-assessed.
It is difficult to appreciate the petitioner’s objection that the information received from DAO-45, New Delhi, acting under Article 26 of the Indo-Japanese treaty for the Avoidance of Double Taxation, cannot constitute valid material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can form even a tentative or prima facie belief that income to the extent of Rs. 11,28,644/- had escaped assessment.
In the case of the assessee, it is clear that a precise and definite information was received by the Assessing Officer regarding receipt of accommodation entries in respect of capital from various persons aggregating to Rs. 14.45 lakhs. He compared the information with the information available in the return of the assessee.
There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc, because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. To hold that the assessing officer in the first round did not examine the question or subject matter and form an opinion, would be contrary and opposed to normal human conduct. Such cases have to be examined individually.
In the instant case also, the assessee furnished all the details relating to its claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and the Assessing Officer thoroughly examined the claim while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) and on being satisfied the claim was allowed. Therefore, in the present case, reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is definitely a change of opinion which is not maintainable and therefore, the re-assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by taking a view which was in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was not valid.
