Service of notice (148) : HC Gujarat in favour of Revenue

“The issuance of notice is required, the service of notice after time barring date, do not invalidate the proceedings.”

 Atulbhai Hiralal Shah v. C.P. Meena

[2016] 73 taxmann.com 320 (Gujarat)

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs AKIL KURESHI AND A.J. Shastri, JJ.

Special civil Application Nos. 2552 & 2553 of 2016

IT : Where Assessing Officer had reopened assessment of assessee and sent notice to him through postal department at address contained in his PAN card, which was returned back with remark 'left', and assessee challenged reopening of assessment contending that remark 'left' was totally incorrect, since assessee had not joined postal department to question why remark 'left' was made, only on ground of non service of notice, reassessment proceedings could not be terminated

 

JUNE  13, 2016

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for (Service of notice) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessing Officer had reopened assessment of assessee and sent notice for service to him through postal department at address contained in his PAN card, which was returned back by postal department with remark 'left' - Assessee challenged reopening of assessment contending that remark of postal department 'left' was totally incorrect, since he had received various communications including from that of Income Tax Department at that very address contained in PAN card - Whether since assessee had not joined postal department to question why remark 'left' was made and Assessing Officer was entitled to proceed on basis of remark of postal department, only on ground of non service of notice, reassessment proceedings could not be terminated - Held, yes [Paras 12 and 13] [In favour of revenue]

S. 148. Penny stock. HC-Guj. In favor of revenue. The re-opening is valid.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Nishant Vilaskumar Parekh v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3)
J.B. PARDIWALA AND ILESH J. VORA, JJ.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21929 of 2019
MARCH  15, 2021.

Section 10(38), read with section 147, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long-term securities (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Assessee company sold 40,000 shares of a company held by it and earned long-term capital gain (LTCG) of certain amount and claimed same as exempt income under section 10(38) - Same was allowed and an assessment order was passed - An information was received from AIMS module that shares sold by assessee were of penny stock - On basis of same, Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice against assessee - It was noted that said information was specific with regard to transactions of penny stock entered into by assessee - On basis of information received, Assessing Officer had made independent inquiry and applied his mind to such information and upon due satisfaction and materials gathered during inquiries, finally formed a belief that income had escaped assessment - Whether, on facts, impugned reopening notice issued against assessee after four years was justified - Held, yes 

[Paras 16, 17, 21 and 23] 

[In favour of revenue] 

TUNI TEXTILE Ltd

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

S. 147: “Full & true disclosure of material facts” means “specific” disclosure of “each” fact


The assessee entered into an agreement in July 2001 for sale of development rights for Rs.39 crores. The transfer was in December 2003. The assessee computed LTCG of Rs. 23.19 crores. The assessee invested in eligible bonds between Feb & June 2002 (after the agreement to sell but before the transfer) and claimed exemption u/s 54EC. During the assessment proceedings, the AO asked for a copy of the agreements with the purchaser and other details which the assessee furnished. A copy each of the s. 54EC bonds (which gave the dates of investments) was also furnished. The AO allowed the deduction as claimed. After the expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 claiming that as the investments were made prior to the date of transfer (Dec 2003), s. 54EC deduction was not admissible. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the reopening on the ground that there was no failure on its part to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. HELD dismissing the Petition:

(i) “Full and true disclosure of material facts” means that the disclosure should not be garbled or hidden in the crevices of the documentary material which has been filed by the assessee with the AO. The assessee must act with candor. A full disclosure is a disclosure of all material facts which does not contain any hidden material or suppression of fact. It must be truthful in all respects;

(ii) On facts, though the AO enquired into the matter and the assessee furnished a copy of the s. 54EC bonds (from which the dates of allotment/ investment were evident), there was no (specific) reference by the assessee to the dates on which the amounts were invested in the s. 54EC bonds. Also, it was it was evident that the AO had not applied his mind to the issue of s. 54EC exemption. Accordingly, the AO was justified in reopening the assessment.

Whether Revenue can initiate reassessment proceedings merely on basis of i

I-T - Whether Revenue can initiate reassessment proceedings merely on basis of information obtained from Central Excise Department that assessee had suppressed sales of manufactured goods - YES, but all relied upon documents to be given to assessee: ITAT

MUMBAI, SEPT 28, 2011: THE Income Tax - Sections 115O, 147 - Whether at the time of initiation of Sec 147 proceedings it is not necessary for AO to confront that material to assessee on the basis of which reasonable belief is formed - Whether information received from Central Excise department revealing that the assessee was suppressing sales is sufficient to assume jurisdiction of 147 - Whether at the time of completion of proceedings it is incumbent on AO to supply the material to assessee so that principle of natural justice may be complied with.

The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in lubricating oils. The assessee filed return of income on 28.11.2006 declaring total income of Re.1. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 6.12.2007. On 3.12.2005 & 6.12.2005, the factory premises of the assessee was searched by the central excise officers (Preventive). The office premise of the assessee was also searched by the central excise officers (Preventive) on 6.12.2005. The premises of M/s. Jay Enterprises and M/s. Krishna Marketing were also searched by the central excise officers (Preventive) on 14.12.2005. Statements of various persons were recorded and ultimately it was held by the central excise authorities that the assessee was clandestinely removing goods from the place of manufacturer without payment of excise duty. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise raised a demand of Rs.48,49,843 and Central Excise Duty payable by the assessee on clandestine removal of goods. This order was passed on 31.3.2008.

The AO received information from the Central Excise Authorities about the above facts. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under sections 148 of the Act on 27.10.2008. Before issuing the said notice, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for initiating proceedings under sections 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO. Before ITAT, it was contended that the AO has violated the principle of natural justice in as much as he had not supplied the material, collected from Excise department, to the assessee for it's rebuttal.

After hearing the parties the ITAT held that,

++ the claim of the Assessee was that since dividend was not distributed, the question of payment of dividend distribution tax does not arise at all;

++ the admitted facts are that the Amalgamation was sanctioned by the High Court on 18.10.2000. The appointed date was 1.4.2000. As on the date of sanction the dividend had already been paid by the Assessee. The incidence of tax u/s 115-O of the Act is on the distribution of dividend. Any subsequent act by which the dividend itself does not become taxable in the hands of the recipient of the dividend will not be relevant. In other words the payment of dividend distribution tax is not dependent on the ultimate chargeability to tax in the hands of the recipient of the dividend. Therefore the extension of the analogy laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Mafatlal Gagalbhai & co. (supra) to Sec.115-O of the Act, sought to be canvassed on behalf of the Assessee, in our view was rightly rejected by the revenue authorities. We therefore confirm the order of the Revenue authorities and dismiss ground No.2 raised by the Assessee;

++ it is not in dispute that the facts and the basis on which liability by way of provision for warrant claims was made in AY 92-93 and AY 00-01 and the basis of provision of warranty liability in the present A.Y. was made are identical. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to take a different view;

++ the law is very clear that where profit or loss arises on account of appreciation or depreciation in the value of foreign currency, on conversion into another currency, such profit or loss would ordinarily be trading profit or loss depending on the purpose for which the foreign exchange was to be used whether for incurring capital expenditure or for meeting revenue expenditure. Admittedly the Euro Notes were raised for capital purpose and the gain arose, not in the course of trading activities but merely due to conversion of the currency of one country into the currency of another country, the said gain is on capital account and not in the nature of income. Further, the gain has arisen at the point of time when the funds were repatriated to India. Admittedly the Euro Notes were issued for meeting capital expenditure and remained outside India. When they were repatriated to India at the point of time of repatriation, the purpose for which the funds were raised admittedly remained one for meeting capital expenditure. As rightly held by the CIT(A), the taxability has to be determined at the point of time when the profit arose. The subsequent utilisation, in our view was irrelevant, on the facts of the present case. With regard to allegation of the AO that there was a failure on the part of the Assessee to explain the utilisation of the funds repatriated for meeting capital expenditure, we are of the view that the fact that the repatriated funds went into a common pool from which both capital and revenue expenditure were met cannot lead to the conclusion that the utilization of funds was for revenue purposes and not capital expenses;

++ it is seen from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that he has recorded reasons for escapement of income on the basis of information received from the excise authorities. In this regard, the fact that there was a search by the excise authorities on 3.12.2005 and 6.12.2005 in the premises of factory and office of the assessee are not in dispute. The assessee was well aware of these proceedings;

++ on 27.10.2008, notice under section 148 has been issued to the assessee. Before issue of such notice, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act which we have already referred to in the earlier part of this order. All the above facts were well within the knowledge of the assessee. On the above facts which came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that he could not have entertained belief regarding escapement of income. We are of the view that on the facts available before the Assessing Officer, he was justified in coming to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;

++ at the outset, we notice that while concluding the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was not given copies of the documents as well as the statements recorded by the central excise authorities;

++ it cannot be said that the assessee had proper opportunity to put forth his grievances in the reassessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. In fact it was precisely for the same reason that the CESTAT set aside the orders of central excise authorities and directed them to make fresh assessment after providing all the material based on which assessments were made to the assessee. There was no right of cross examination of the persons who gave statement in the income tax proceedings. We are of the view that the assessment made in the income tax proceedings should also be set aside and the Assessing Officer should be directed to make assessment afresh in the light of the assessment that may be made by the central excise authority on remand by the CESTAT.

S. 147: Despite specific & pointed queries in s. 143(3) assessment, AO cannot be said to have formed any opinion if explicit opinion not recorded

In the balance sheet enclosed with the ROI, the assessee disclosed sundry creditors of Rs. 1.66 crores. In the course of the s. 143 (3) assessment, the AO asked the assessee to submit the entire list of sundry creditors with their names and addresses etc. The assessee submitted confirmations to the extent of Rs. 1.13 crores and though it could not explain Rs. 33 lakhs, the AO assessed only Rs. 19.86 lakhs u/s 41(1) in respect of 7 creditors. The assessee filed an appeal on the issue. After the expiry of 4 years and pursuant to an audit objection, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 seeking to assess the balance of the creditors as well u/s 41(1). The assessee filed a Writ Petition challenging the reopening on the ground that (i) as the AO had consciously assessed only Rs. 19.86 lakhs though he was aware of the creditors' figure being Rs. 1.66 crores, it was a case of "change of opinion" and (ii) as 4 years from the end of the assessment year had elapsed, reopening was not permissible as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of the material facts. HELD dismissing the Petition:

(i) The argument that as the AO had called for the details of Rs. 1.66 crores and confined the addition only to Rs. 19.66 lakhs, the reopening is on a "change of opinion" is not acceptable. The question of change of opinion arises when the AO forms an opinion and decides not to make an addition and holds that the assessee is correct. Here, though the AO had asked specific and pointed queries with regard to the sundry creditors of Rs. 1.66 crores, he had made an addition of only Rs.19.86 lakhs and there was no discussion, ground or reason why addition of Rs. 32.97 lakhs was not made in-spite of the assessee's failure to furnish conformation and details to that extent. The argument that when the assessment order does not record any explicit opinion on the aspects now sought to be examined, it must be presumed that those aspects were present to the mind of the AO and had been held in favour of the assessee is too far-fetched a proposition to merit acceptance (Consolidated Photo vs. ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del) followed);

(ii) The argument that there was a full and true disclosure of material facts is not acceptable because though in the regular assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details with regard to all creditors, this was not done. The term "failure" on the part of the assessee is not restricted only to the income-tax return but extends also to the assessment proceedings. If the assessee does not disclose or furnish to the AO complete and correct information and details it is required and under an obligation to disclose, there is a failure on its part (Honda Siel Power Products vs. DCIT followed).

ITR (TRIB) Volume 11 : Part 5 Issue dated : 26-09-2011, SUBJECT INDEX

ITR'S TRIBUNAL TAX REPORTS (ITR (TRIB))

Volume 11 : Part 5 (Issue dated : 26-09-2011)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

->> Charitable purposes --Registration--Society running educational institutions--No proof that funds applied for non-charitable or religious purposes--Direction to grant to retrospective registration--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 12AA-- Karandhai Tamil Sangam v. CIT (Chennai) . . . 430

->> Charitable trust --Registration--Denial of registration as activities confined to one religion--Finding that activities not only religious but also charitable--Assessee to be given status of religious and charitable trust--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 12A-- Kasyapa Veda Research Foundation v. CIT (Cochin) . . . 468

->> Company --Computation of profits under section 115JB--Provision for bad debts--Amount to be added to book profits--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 115JB-- Magnum Power Generation Ltd. v . Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 493

->> Income from house property --Business income--Income from property or business income--Assessee constructing residential units and dealing in them--Amount received on lease of some units--Not from business--Income from property--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 22, 28-- Roma Builders P. Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Mumbai) . . . 503

->> Income from undisclosed sources --Survey in premises of assessee--Defects in books of account--No nexus between un-accounted profit earned and investment made in properties outside books of account--Set off allowed--Amounts to reducing additional income declared by assessee--Set off not justified--Income-tax Act, 1961-- V. R. Textiles v. Joint CIT (Ahmedabad) . . . 476

->> Income-tax survey --Accounting--Rejection of books of account--Defects in books of account--Entire undisclosed sales cannot be treated as profit of assessee--Commissioner (Appeals) applying gross profit rate--Proper--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 145-- V. R. Textiles v. Joint CIT (Ahmedabad) . . . 476

->> Industrial undertaking --Generation and supply of power--Amount received from sale of scrap and writing back of credit balances--No finding whether credit balances related to business and whether scrap was generated by industrial undertaking--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IA-- Magnum Power Generation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 493

->> ----Generation and supply of power--Special deduction under section 80-IA--Agreement for supply of power--Agreement providing that if power not required compensation charges to be paid--Amount received for deemed generation of power--Entitled to special deduction under section 80-IA--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IA-- Magnum Power Generation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 493

->> Non-resident --Advance tax--Interest--Not payable where entire income liable to deduction of tax at source--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 195, 234B-- Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (International Taxation) (Delhi) . . . 513

->> ----Taxability in India--Turnkey project in India--Permanent establishment--Project office in Mumbai involved in activities of project from commencement--Contract indivisible--No material to show project office concerned only with activities outside India--Mode of accounting of expenses of project office not decisive--Mumbai office constituted permanent establishment--Ad hoc attribution of percentage of income to permanent establishment not permissible--Matter remanded for determination on basis of material --Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 144C--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Korea, art. 5-- Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (International Taxation) (Delhi) . . . 513

->> Penalty --Concealment of income--Discrepancy in accounts--Amount surrendered because auditors raided and books of account could not be produced--Explanation of assessee reasonable--Penalty cannot be levied--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- ITO v. Dr. V . Muralikrishnan (Chennai) . . . 443

->> Perquisites --Employees stock option--Equity warrant certificates--Not by themselves securities but merely granting option to obtain shares--Date of exercise of option is date of acquisition of shares not date of certificate--Warrrant issued in February 1999 and assessee exercising option in April 1999--Perquisites arise and taxable in financial year 1999-2000 relevant to assessment year 2000-01--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 17(2)(iiia) -- Deputy CIT v. Vijay Gopal Jindal (Delhi) . . . 451

->> Reassessment --Notice--Notice after four years--Validity--No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Returns accompanied by audited accounts--Special deduction under section 80HHC allowed after considering material on record--Reassessment proceedings after four years to reduce special deduction--Barred by limitation--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 80HHC, 147, 148-- Deputy CIT v. Purolator India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 434

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

->> Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Korea :

art. 5 --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Turnkey project in India--Permanent establishment--Project office in Mumbai involved in activities of project from commencement--Contract indivisible--No material to show project office concerned only with activities outside India--Mode of accounting of expenses of project office not decisive--Mumbai office constituted permanent establishment--Ad hoc attribution of percentage of income to permanent establishment not permissible--Matter remanded for determination on basis of material-- Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (International Taxation) (Delhi) . . . 513

Income-tax Act, 1961 :

->> S. 12A --Charitable trust--Registration--Denial of registration as activities confined to one religion--Finding that activities not only religious but also charitable--Assessee to be given status of religious and charitable trust-- Kasyapa Veda Research Foundation v. CIT (Cochin) . . . 468

->> S. 12AA --Charitable purposes--Registration--Society running educational institutions--No proof that funds applied for non-charitable or religious purposes--Direction to grant to retrospective registration-- Karandhai Tamil Sangam v. CIT (Chennai) . . . 430

->> S. 17(2)(iiia) --Perquisites--Employees stock option--Equity warrant certificates--Not by themselves securities but merely granting option to obtain shares--Date of exercise of option is date of acquisition of shares not date of certificate--Warrrant issued in February 1999 and assessee exercising option in April 1999--Perquisites arise and taxable in financial year 1999-2000 relevant to assessment year 2000-01-- Deputy CIT v. Vijay Gopal Jindal (Delhi) . . . 451

->> S. 22 --Income from house property--Business income--Income from property or business income--Assessee constructing residential units and dealing in them--Amount received on lease of some units--Not from business--Income from property-- Roma Builders P. Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Mumbai) . . . 503

->> S. 28 --Income from house property--Business income--Income from property or business income--Assessee constructing residential units and dealing in them--Amount received on lease of some units--Not from business--Income from property-- Roma Builders P. Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Mumbai) . . . 503

->> S. 80-IA --Industrial undertaking--Generation and supply of power--Amount received from sale of scrap and writing back of credit balances--No finding whether credit balances related to business and whether scrap was generated by industrial undertaking--Matter remanded-- Magnum Power Generation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 493

->> ----Industrial undertaking--Generation and supply of power--Special deduction under section 80-IA--Agreement for supply of power--Agreement providing that if power not required compensation charges to be paid--Amount received for deemed generation of power--Entitled to special deduction under section 80-IA-- Magnum Power Generation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 493

->> S. 80HHC --Reassessment--Notice--Notice after four years--Validity--No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Returns accompanied by audited accounts--Special deduction under section 80HHC allowed after considering material on record--Reassessment proceedings after four years to reduce special deduction--Barred by limitation-- Deputy CIT v. Purolator India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 434

->> S. 115JB --Company--Computation of profits under section 115JB--Provision for bad debts--Amount to be added to book profits-- Magnum Power Generation Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 493

->> S. 144C --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Turnkey project in India--Permanent establishment--Project office in Mumbai involved in activities of project from commencement--Contract indivisible--No material to show project office concerned only with activities outside India--Mode of accounting of expenses of project office not decisive--Mumbai office constituted permanent establishment--Ad hoc attribution of percentage of income to permanent establishment not permissible--Matter remanded for determination on basis of material-- Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (International Taxation) (Delhi) . . . 513

->> S. 145 --Income-tax survey--Accounting--Rejection of books of account--Defects in books of account--Entire undisclosed sales cannot be treated as profit of assessee--Commissioner (Appeals) applying gross profit rate--Proper-- V. R. Textiles v. Joint CIT (Ahmedabad) . . . 476

->> S. 147 --Reassessment--Notice--Notice after four years--Validity--No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Returns accompanied by audited accounts--Special deduction under section 80HHC allowed after considering material on record--Reassessment proceedings after four years to reduce special deduction--Barred by limitation-- Deputy CIT v. Purolator India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 434

->> S. 148 --Reassessment--Notice--Notice after four years--Validity--No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Returns accompanied by audited accounts--Special deduction under section 80HHC allowed after considering material on record--Reassessment proceedings after four years to reduce special deduction--Barred by limitation-- Deputy CIT v. Purolator India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 434

->> S. 195 --Non-resident--Advance tax--Interest--Not payable where entire income liable to deduction of tax at source-- Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (International Taxation) (Delhi) . . . 513

->> S. 234B --Non-resident--Advance tax--Interest--Not payable where entire income liable to deduction of tax at source-- Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (International Taxation) (Delhi) . . . 513

->> S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Concealment of income--Discrepancy in accounts--Amount surrendered because auditors raided and books of account could not be produced--Explanation of assessee reasonable--Penalty cannot be levied-- ITO v. Dr. V. Muralikrishnan (Chennai) . . . 443

.......

=============================================================================

Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog (itronline.blogspot.com)and will sent to the group on various dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day.

=========================================================================

Notice u/s 148 issued within time , but served after limitation is valid !

Notice u/s 148 issued within time , but served after limitation is valid !

In previous posting , readers attention was brought on the invalidity of assessment if it was based on a notice u/s 143(2) which was issued in time , but served after time limitation . Contrary to the said  position is the issue of notice  u/s 148 of the I T Act. The notice u/s 148 is issued by A.O when he records reasons for reopening an assessment u/s 147 of the I .T.Act. Section 149 of the I T Act prescribes time limit within which notice us/ 148 can be issued.

Notice u/s 148

The question on validity of issue of notice us/ 148 which was issued in time , but served after the time limitation  recently came up before ITAT , Agra bench in ITO vs Sikandar Lal Jain reported in  45 SOT 113 [2011] . The tribunal held the service of notice even after the limitation date as valid if it was issued within time.
The decision of Tribunal was based on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163 (SC) in which it was held that -

"The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149, in the 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between "issue of notice" and "service of notice" under the 1961 Act. Section 149 prescribes the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under section 148 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assessment. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income-tax Officer to proceed to reassess. The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In this case, admittedly the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as March 31, 1970, was the last day of that period. Service under the new Act is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment. The High Court, in our opinion, lost sight of the distinction and under a wrong basis felt bound by the judgment in Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100. As the Income-tax Officer had issued notice within limitation, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated. The Income-tax Officer shall now proceed to complete the assessment after complying with the requirements of law."

Settled Position on issue of notice u/s 148

If the notice u/s 148 is issued within time , the notice is valid despite the fact that the said notice is served after the end of time for issue of notice.

Delhi High Court: Search Assessment u/s 153A Does Not Require Issue of Notice U/s 143(2)

Issue of notice u/s 143(2) before passing search assessment order has been controversial issue . This is for simple reason that  no clear provision regarding issue of notice has been given in the Income T Act in case of search proceeding u/s 153A . Therefore, among many grounds on which counsel for assessee challenge order by A.O u/s 153A is issuance of notice u/s 143(2).

Notice in Search Case u/s 153A

In recent past , Tribunals have given verdict that in case of search proceeding u/s 153A also , the notice u/s 143(2) is necessary . In fact , ITAT, Agra , in its order dt 30/11/2010 in case of Narendra Singh vs ITO 138 TTJ 615 held that notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory in case of search case u/s 153A.
However, Delhi High Court in a very recent judgment in case of Ashok Chadha vs CIT held that the notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory for search assessment u/s 153A.
Search case issue before Delhi High Court

"(a) Whether the issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for finalization of assessment under Section 153A? (b) Whether the findings of the authorities below upholding addition of Rs.10 lac of cash seized from Mr. D.S. Rawat in the hands of the Assessee was perverse and required to be set aside? "

The Court held on the issue of notice u/s 143(2) in case of search assessment u/s 153A as under

11. It is also to be noted that Section 153A provides for the procedure for assessment in case of search or requisition. Sub section (1) starts with non-obstante clause stating that it was 'notwithstanding? anything contained in sections 147, 148 and 149, etc. Clause(a) thereof provides for issuance of notice to the person searched under Section 132 or where documents etc are requisitioned under Section 132(A), to furnish a return of income. This clause nowhere prescribes for issuance of notice under Section 143(2). Learned counsel for the assessee/appellant sought to contend that the words, "so far as may be applicable" made it mandatory for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) since the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A was to be treated as one under Section 139. Learned counsel relies upon R. Dalmia v CIT (supra) wherein the question of issue of notice under Section 143(2) was examined with reference to Section 148 by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 147. The Apex Court held as under:
"As to the argument based upon Sections 144-A, 246 and 263, we do not doubt that assessments under Section 143 and assessments and reassessments under Section 147 are different, but in making assessment and re-assessments under Section 147 the procedure laid down in Sections subsequent to Section 139, including that laid down by Section 144B, has to be followed."
12. The case of R. Dalmia v CIT (supra) primarily was with regard to applicability of section 144B and Section 153 (since omitted with effect from 01.04.1989) to the assessment made under section 147 and 148 and thus cannot be said to be the decision laying down the law regarding mandatory issue of notice under Section 143(2).
13. The words "so far as may be" in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 153A could not be interpreted that the issue of notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory in case of assessment under Section 153A. The use of the words, "so far as may be" cannot be stretched to the extent of mandatory issue of notice under Section 143(2). As is noted, a specific notice was required to be issued under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A calling upon the persons searched or requisitioned to file return. That being so, no further notice under Section 143(2) could be contemplated for assessment under Section 153A.
14. No specific notice was required under section 143(2) of the Act when the notice in the present case as required under Section 153 (A) (1) (a) of the Act was already given. In addition, the two questionnaires issued to the assessee were sufficient so as to give notice to the assessee, asking him to attend the office of the AO in person or through a representative duly authorized in writing or produce or cause to be produced at the given time any documents, accounts, and any other evidence on which he may rely in support of the return filed by him.

In nutshell, the controversy regarding the issue of notice u/s 143(2) in case of search assessment u/s 153A has been set to rest by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

148 notice, even if unserved, is valid & second s. 148 notice issued to meet a

Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 148 notice, even if unserved, is valid & second s. 148 notice issued to meet assessee's claim of non-service, is invalid & renders assessment void

For AY 2001-02 (and other years), the AO recorded reasons for reopening of assessment on 22.9.05 and issued s. 148 notice on 23.9.05. The notice was sent through speed post and was not returned undelivered. Though the assessee appeared before the AO on several occasions and wrote letters, he claimed vide Affidavit that the s. 148 notice was not received by him. Pursuant to the assessee's claim, the AO issued another notice dated 25.9.06 u/s 148 and an assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 was passed on 24.12.2007. The assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that (i) with respect to the s. 148 notice dated 23.9.05, the assessment order passed on 24.12.07 was time-barred and (ii) with respect to the s. 148 notice dated 25.9.06 that it could not have been issued during the pendency of the first notice. The department argued that as the assessee had claimed that he had not received the first notice dated 23.9.05, only the second notice could be considered and if so, the assessment was valid. HELD allowing the appeal:

(i) Though the assessee claimed by affidavit that he had not received the first s. 148 notice (and that formed the basis of the second 148 notice), as the first notice was sent by speed post as permitted by s. 282, it is presumed to have been duly served upon the assessee and was valid;

(ii) There is a difference between "issue" and "service". To obtain jurisdiction to assess/reassess the escaped income, the s. 148 notice has to be "issued" but need not be "served". Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the AO but a condition precedent only to the making of the order of assessment. The word "issue" means that the notice must leave the custody of the AO and as the Post Office is not the department's agent, sending it by post completes "issue". Accordingly, though the first notice was not (according to the assessee & department) served on the assessee, the AO was vested with power to assess/reassess the escaped income (R. K. Upadhyaya 166 ITR 163 (SC) & Sheo Kumari Debi 157 ITR 13 (Pat) (FB) followed);

(iii) With regard to the second notice, as the first s. 148 notice was valid and reassessment proceedings were pending, the second s. 148 notice is a `nullity'. Unless the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are concluded & brought to a logical end, the AO cannot issue fresh notice u/s 148. This is not an "irregularity" but a "nullity" (Ranchhoddas Karsandas 26 ITR 105 (SC) & Jai Dev Jain 227 ITR 301 (Raj) followed);

(iv) The result is that the limitation period has to be reckoned with reference to the first notice dated 23.09.05 as per which the assessment order dated 24.11.07 is beyond time.

See Also Mayawati vs. CIT 321 ITR 349 (Del) where the distinction between "issue" & "service" in s. 148 was considered. But also see Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) where it was held that apart from the notice, even the recorded reasons had to be served on the assessee within the limitation period

Related Judgements

Mayawati vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be "issued" but not "served" within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of…

Ashoka Buildcon vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) In CIT vs. Alagendran Finance 293 ITR. 1 (SC) it was held that the doctrine of merger does not apply where the subject matter of reassessment and original assessment is not one and the same. Where the assessment is reopened on a specific ground and the reassessment is…

Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) U/s 149(1)(b) a notice u/s 148 cannot be issued after the issue of 6 years from the end of the AY. In Haryana Acrylic vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 it was held that a notice u/s 148 without the communication of the reasons there for is meaningless inasmuch as…

HC Ruling-Merely because of the fact that the assessee had asserted that it is a

HC Ruling-Merely because of the fact that the assessee had asserted that it is a developer in the returns filed by him, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. At best, the petitioner has made a claim along with supporting documents, namely, development agreements for construction of housing projects, etc. and based upon the said documents, the AO had formed an opinion and granted deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. As to whether in a given set of facts, the assessee is a developer or a works contractor is a matter of inference. Hence, the assertion that the petitioner is a developer, without anything more cannot be said to be an incorrect disclosure of facts, as is sought to be contended on behalf of the revenue. In the circumstances, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is illegal and invalid. The proceedings under section 147 of the Act which have been initiated by issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, cannot be sustained-AIT-2011-92-HC

S. 148 notice, even if unserved, is valid & second s. 148 notice issued to meet assessee’s claim of non-service, is invalid & renders assessment void

Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 148 notice, even if unserved, is valid & second s. 148 notice issued to meet assessee's claim of non-service, is invalid & renders assessment void

 

For AY 2001-02 (and other years), the AO recorded reasons for reopening of assessment on 22.9.05 and issued s. 148 notice on 23.9.05. The notice was sent through speed post and was not returned undelivered. Though the assessee appeared before the AO on several occasions and wrote letters, he claimed vide Affidavit that the s. 148 notice was not received by him. Pursuant to the assessee's claim, the AO issued another notice dated 25.9.06 u/s 148 and an assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 was passed on 24.12.2007. The assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that (i) with respect to the s. 148 notice dated 23.9.05, the assessment order passed on 24.12.07 was time-barred and (ii) with respect to the s. 148 notice dated 25.9.06 that it could not have been issued during the pendency of the first notice. The department argued that as the assessee had claimed that he had not received the first notice dated 23.9.05, only the second notice could be considered and if so, the assessment was valid. HELD allowing the appeal:

 

(i) Though the assessee claimed by affidavit that he had not received the first s. 148 notice (and that formed the basis of the second 148 notice), as the first notice was sent by speed post as permitted by s. 282, it is presumed to have been duly served upon the assessee and was valid;

 

(ii) There is a difference between "issue" and "service". To obtain jurisdiction to assess/reassess the escaped income, the s. 148 notice has to be "issued" but need not be "served". Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the AO but a condition precedent only to the making of the order of assessment. The word "issue" means that the notice must leave the custody of the AO and as the Post Office is not the department's agent, sending it by post completes "issue". Accordingly, though the first notice was not (according to the assessee & department) served on the assessee, the AO was vested with power to assess/reassess the escaped income (R. K. Upadhyaya 166 ITR 163 (SC) & Sheo Kumari Debi 157 ITR 13 (Pat) (FB) followed);

 

(iii) With regard to the second notice, as the first s. 148 notice was valid and reassessment proceedings were pending, the second s. 148 notice is a 'nullity'. Unless the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are concluded & brought to a logical end, the AO cannot issue fresh notice u/s 148. This is not an "irregularity" but a "nullity" (Ranchhoddas Karsandas 26 ITR 105 (SC) & Jai Dev Jain 227 ITR 301 (Raj) followed);

 

(iv) The result is that the limitation period has to be reckoned with reference to the first notice dated 23.09.05 as per which the assessment order dated 24.11.07 is beyond time.

--
Me on net :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/

http://itronline.blogspot.com/

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/It_law_reported


Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."

Income-tax : In case of a company, notice under section 148 is to be served on i

Income-tax : In case of a company, notice under section 148 is to be served on its Principal Officer for making a valid assessment under section 147.

l Where the notice under section 148 was not served upon the Principal Officer of the assessee-company but on a person who was not empowered to receive the notice, the service of notice under section 148 was not a valid service, and the assessment completed under section 147 in the absence of a valid service was bad in law. - [2010] 8 TAXMANN.COM 266 (LUCKNOW - ITAT)

--
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/aaykarbhavan/
http://groups.google.com/group/aaykarbhavan
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/It_law_reported/
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/fun-finder
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/le-vech/
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/groups_master/



--
Receive free SMS of finance updates and alert at mobile
Cost free
-----
aaykarbhavan:News about the aykarbhavan
http://labs.google.co.in/smschannels/subscribe/aaykarbhavan
-----
Good and Clean funny, informative motivational SMSes
http://labs.google.co.in/smschannels/subscribe/rajkumarsms
-----
Gandinagar, News about Gandhinagar , Gujarat
http://labs.google.co.in/smschannels/subscribe/Gandhinagar

******
Or Join it by sending SMS

go to write messge in your mobile
type

"on aaykarbhavan" /
"on gandhinagar" /
"on rajkumarsms"

and sen it to 9870807070