Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act were barred by limitation and whether the extended six-year period applied in the absence of concealment or failure to disclose fully the turnover particulars.
Analysis: The limitation structure in Section 24 permits six years only where the dealer has concealed, omitted, or failed to disclose fully the particulars of turnover; in all other cases, the period is four years. On the recorded reasons for reopening, the basis was not concealment or non-disclosure by the assessee, but only the alleged inadmissibility of deduction claims under Rule 5 of the Works Contracts Rules, 1999. The disclosed turnover itself was taken into account, and the reasons did not establish any failure of full disclosure. The reassessment notice was therefore governed by the four-year period.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were time-barred and could not be pursued on the basis of the notice dated 5 July 2007; they were set aside, and the relief was granted in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: The extended reassessment limitation applies only where concealment or failure of full disclosure is the foundation for reopening; absent such a basis, the shorter limitation period governs and the reassessment is barred once it expires.