2004 (6) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Court quashes invalid tax notices, emphasizes compliant returns' validity.

Indian Tube Co. Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing all four notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. ... Notice issued u/s 148 – validity – notices are quashed on the ground that the required satisfaction of the officer concerned was not taken for reopening assessments more than four years old. The other two notices dated March 29,1983, are set aside on the ground that those were issued at a point of time when the assessee had already submitted the returns for those periods pursuant to an earlier invalid notice and so long as those two returns are not assessed in accordance with law, there was no scope for issuing further notice u/s 148. - Writ application, thus, succeeds. Those four notices under section 148 are quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed with the assessment on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier notices. Issues:Validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76; Requirement of necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax/Central Board of Revenue for reopening assessments; Scope of issuing fresh notices under section 148 after submission of returns pursuant to earlier invalid notices; Applicability of Supreme Court decision in CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] 55 ITR 630; Interpretation of law regarding filing of returns and subsequent assessment process under section 148.Analysis:The petitioner challenged four notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, two dated February 11, 1983, and two dated March 29, 1983, for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The initial notices were issued without necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax/Central Board of Revenue, leading to a dispute regarding the validity of the reopening of assessments after more than four years. The subsequent notices were issued after obtaining the required satisfaction, prompting a legal challenge by the petitioner.The petitioner's counsel argued that the first two notices were invalid due to the lack of necessary satisfaction, and the subsequent notices were unnecessary as returns had already been filed in response to the earlier invalid notices. This argument was supported by a Supreme Court decision in CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] 55 ITR 630, emphasizing the significance of returns filed in compliance with notices.On the other hand, the income-tax authority contended that the initial notices were indeed illegal but justified the subsequent notices as a valid initiation of fresh proceedings after rectifying the earlier mistake. This argument was backed by decisions of the Allahabad High Court, which supported the authority's position regarding the legality of the fresh notices.The Court examined the arguments presented by both sides and referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] 55 ITR 630, which established the importance of treating returns filed in response to notices as valid returns. Applying this principle to the case at hand, the Court concluded that the returns filed by the petitioner in compliance with the initial invalid notices should be considered valid returns, precluding the need for further notices under section 148.The Court also analyzed the decisions cited by the income-tax authority, highlighting that those decisions were not directly applicable to the present case, where returns had already been filed in response to the initial notices. Consequently, the Court quashed the first two notices issued on February 11, 1983, due to the lack of required satisfaction, and set aside the subsequent notices issued on March 29, 1983, as unnecessary since valid returns had already been submitted.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing all four notices under section 148 and directing the income-tax authorities to proceed with assessments based on the returns filed in response to the earlier notices. No costs were awarded in the judgment.