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>Income tax reassessment reopening under ss. 147/148 without prior s. 143(2) scrutiny notice upheld; writ challenge dismissed.</h1> Reassessment proceedings under ss. 147/148 were challenged as void for want of a prior notice under s. 143(2). The HC held that the scheme of s. 147, ... Validity of initiating proceedings u/s 147/148, without a prior notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT:- The proviso to section 147, inter alia, provides that 'no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year' in a case 'where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 ... has been made for the relevant assessment year.' This provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent. It shows that the provision of section 147 can be invoked not only after the order has been passed under section 143(3) but even otherwise. It is the petitioner's own case that the assessment under section 143(3) could be made up to March 19, 2002. In the present case, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner on March 29, 2001, It was almost a year before the date on which an order could be passed under section 143(3). The notice having been given well in advance, it cannot be said that any prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. Secondly, we find that the reasons were conveyed. It has not been suggested by counsel that these were not relevant. There is no injustice. We find no ground to interfere under article 226. We answer the question posed at the outset against the petitioner. It is held that the notice under section 147/148 issued to the petitioner is not vitiated merely for the reason that notice under section 143(2) had not been issued to it. Issues involved: The legality of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without a prior notice u/s 143(2) to the petitioner.Summary:The petitioner challenged the initiation of proceedings by the respondent-joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Patiala, through a notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that no notice u/s 143(2) had been issued. The court examined the legal infirmities alleged by the petitioner and the respondent's actions. The court noted that the Assessing Officer can proceed under section 147/148 if there is a reason to believe income has escaped assessment, regardless of whether the assessment under section 143(3) has been finalized. The court emphasized that the term 'escape assessment' includes both non-assessment and under-assessment. The petitioner's own statements indicated that the assessment had been completed under section 143(1) and further actions had been taken, such as filing an appeal and a reply to the notice u/s 148.The court reviewed relevant case laws cited by the petitioner's counsel and found that the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 without a notice u/s 143(2) was legally permissible. The court highlighted that the absence of an order under section 143(3) did not bar the Assessing Officer from proceeding under section 148. The court also addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the extension of the limitation period, stating that the notice was issued well in advance, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Ultimately, the court held that the notice u/s 147/148 was not vitiated due to the absence of a notice u/s 143(2) and dismissed the petition.Therefore, the court upheld the legality of the notice issued u/s 148 to the petitioner, rejecting the petitioner's claims of legal infirmities in the initiation of proceedings by the respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
