The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1179 (Mad-HC)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 148

Where assessee challenged the issue of notice under section 148 via writ then court declined to interfere in the process of reassessment. Assessee was directed to participate in adjudicatory mechanism before. AO was directed to pass appropriate orders after considering the submission of the assessee and after taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Reassessment - Writ jurisdiction - Writ against notice under section 148 -

Petitioner had filed a regular returns under section 139. After the returns were filed, regular assessment was completed. Petitioner submitted that details regarding the computation of income was called from the Petitioner. Clarification was also given by the petitioner pursuant to which the assessment order came to be passed. Petitioner submitted that the invocation of section 148 was without jurisdiction. He submitted that the reasons given to invoke the powers vested with the respondent under section 148 vide communication dated 26-4-2013 and ultimate rejection of the objection of the petitioner vide Order, dated 3-10-2013 was contrary to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., dt. 9-8-2011 : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 1778 (Karn-HC). .Held: As far as jurisdictional issue was concerned, none of the decisions cited by assessee dealt with section 149. In terms of which section 148 can be invoked either within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year or after six years or sixteen years as he case may be. Once assessment had been reopened, AO could take a prima facie view that he was entitled to proceed further. However, while passing orders under section 147 AO had to keep in mind of express provisions of section 147, particularly the proviso to section 147. Therefore, it could not be stated that impugned notice was without jurisdiction and assessee was directed to participate in adjudicatory mechanism before AO. It was also made clear that order to be passed could not be based on change of opinion if there was true and full disclosure by assessee at the time of filing of return.

Distinguished:CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 92010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC) and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2017) 2 SCC 1 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 5139 (SC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. :



IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com