TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice and the steps taken under sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were invalid for want of proper service or jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the initiation and continuation of the reassessment proceedings were arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to fairness because they were founded on incorrect facts and collateral pressure.
Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice and the steps taken under sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were invalid for want of proper service or jurisdiction.
Analysis: The requirement of notice under the reassessment scheme was examined in the light of the distinction between issue of notice and service of notice. The factual record showed that the notice was sent to the assessee at his last known address, was returned unserved, and a copy was also received through the employer, after which the assessee acted through an authorised representative. On those facts, the defect, if any, was treated as a curable irregularity and not one going to the root of jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The challenge based solely on absence or invalidity of service of notice failed and was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the initiation and continuation of the reassessment proceedings were arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to fairness because they were founded on incorrect facts and collateral pressure.
Analysis: The proceedings were found to have originated from information sent after the foreign-exchange proceedings had ended in favour of the assessee and the employer, although there was no subsisting factual basis for alleging pending demand or clandestine payment at the relevant time. The Court treated the departmental action as lacking fairness, resting on incorrect assumptions, and amounting to an unjustified attempt to keep the remittance blocked and to press the assessee through further proceedings. Subsequent findings exonerating the employer were also relied upon to show that continuation of the reassessment served no useful purpose.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be unfair, arbitrary and unjustified, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the reassessment proceedings were quashed, with costs left to be borne by the parties themselves.
Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is set in motion on an incorrect factual foundation and the continuation of the proceedings is shown to be arbitrary and lacking fairness, the Court may strike down the action notwithstanding technical arguments on notice.
TaxTMI 
