TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds legality of Income Tax Act notice under section 148, emphasizing proof of absence of material</h1> The court upheld the legality of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the writ petition challenging it. Emphasizing the ... Reassessment notice - Failure To Disclose Material Facts - petitioner had not disclosed complete facts which could enable it to claim deduction under section 80-I and, therefore, its income had not been properly assessed. At this stage, the court can neither go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons recorded by respondent No. 2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. - For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned notice. - Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Issues:1. Quashing of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of the reasons for reassessment by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax.Analysis:Issue 1: Quashing of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961The petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1991-92 claiming deduction under section 80-I of the Act. Initially, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later accepted the claim. Subsequently, for the assessment year 1992-93, the deduction was initially disallowed but allowed after an application under section 154. However, respondent No. 2 issued a notice under section 148, alleging that income had escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that all relevant information was disclosed during previous assessments and challenged the notice as ultra vires. The court held that unless it is established that there was no material available for forming a belief of escaped income, the notice under section 148 cannot be quashed. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the court to judge, and the notice can only be challenged if there was no belief or if it was not bona fide. The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to prove that the notice lacked a basis.Issue 2: Validity of the reasons for reassessment by the Additional Commissioner of Income-taxThe respondents contended that the petitioner did not substantiate its claim for deduction under section 80-I with evidence, leading to the issuance of the notice under section 148. The petitioner argued that the notice should be quashed as there was no material to support the belief of escaped income. The court held that the reasons recorded by respondent No. 2 showed a consideration of relevant material, forming a belief that complete facts were not disclosed for claiming the deduction under section 80-I. The court reiterated that at the notice stage, the sufficiency or correctness of the material cannot be questioned, and the notice cannot be struck down based on a different opinion. Consequently, the court found the petitioner's arguments insufficient to quash the notice, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.In conclusion, the court upheld the legality of the notice issued under section 148 and dismissed the writ petition challenging the same, emphasizing the importance of establishing the absence of any material for forming a belief of escaped income to successfully challenge such notices.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
