2016 (10) TMI 1112 - HC - Income Tax

High Court emphasizes legal procedures in Assessment process, rules for Appellant-Assessee

The High Court ruled in favor of the Appellant-Assessee, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal procedures and precedents in the Assessment ... Reopening of assessment - period of limitation - Held that:- Held that:- The parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of reopening i.e. within one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice was issued. In fact, Section 153 (2A) of the Act as in force at the relevant time itself provides that an order of fresh Assessment, consequent to the order of Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, would have to be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order under Section 254 of the Act, was passed by the Tribunal and received by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Director of the appellant has filed an affidavit dated 19th September, 2006. In the affidavit, it is stated that consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 14th August, 2013, the Assessing Officer has not passed any order of reassessment. Time was granted on the last occasion to enable the Respondent to respond to the affidavit dated 19th September, 2006 of the Director of the Appellant-Company. The Respondent is unable to dispute the facts stated in the affidavit dated 19th September, 2016 filed by the Director of the Appellant-Company. The time to pass a order on the notice dated 28th March, 2008, even consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal, has lapsed. Decided in favour of the Appellant-Assessee Issues:1. Justification of restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer after quashing the order2. Compliance with legal procedures in finalizing the Assessment3. Obligation of the Assessing Officer to dispose of objections before finalizing Assessment4. Implications of not following legal precedents in Assessment process5. Time limitations for passing orders on reopening noticesAnalysis:1. The main issue in this case revolves around whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer after quashing the order without disposing of the objections filed by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was obligated to first address the objections before finalizing the Assessment, citing the decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., v/s. ITO 259 ITR 19. However, the High Court noted that if an Assessment Order is found to be without jurisdiction, there is no need to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order, as this could lead to unnecessary harassment of the Assessee by reviving old matters.2. The Assessment for the relevant year was reopened by the Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections raised by the appellant. The High Court emphasized the importance of following due procedure and legal precedents in finalizing Assessments to prevent unjust consequences for the Assessee. The court highlighted that the Assessing Officer must adhere to the law and ensure that objections are addressed before making any additions to the appellant's income based on reopening notices.3. The court also discussed the time limitations imposed by the legislature for passing orders on reopening notices. Section 153(2) of the Act mandates that the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of reopening within a specified period. Failure to adhere to these time limits can have implications for the validity of the Assessment process. The court noted that in this case, the time to pass an order on the notice had lapsed, further emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with legal requirements.4. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Appellant-Assessee, concluding that the substantial question of law was answered in the negative, indicating that the Assessing Officer's actions were not in line with legal procedures and precedents. The court's decision highlighted the significance of following due process and ensuring that Assessments are conducted in accordance with the law to protect the rights of the Assessee and prevent undue harassment.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adherence to legal procedures, timely disposal of objections, and compliance with statutory timelines in the Assessment process to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in tax matters.