TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 rules in favor of assessee on challenging reassessment initiation under section 147(a). AAC can entertain new grounds.</h1> <h3>Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1992] 194 ITR 548, 96 CTR 206 Issues Involved:1. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in entertaining the ground regarding the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147(a) when not challenged earlier.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147(a)The court examined whether the Tribunal was correct in concluding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) should not have entertained the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147(a) since the assessee did not challenge it during the initial appeal against the Income-tax Officer's (ITO) order dated March 28, 1970.The assessee, a company, had its original assessment for the year 1958-59 completed u/s 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on August 27, 1959. The assessment was reopened u/s 147(a) by serving a notice u/s 148 on March 17, 1967. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 147(a) on March 18, 1970, with the total income determined at Rs. 1,16,184, attributed to unexplained cash credits.In the first appeal against the reassessment, the AAC set aside the reassessment to allow the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash credits. A fresh reassessment was completed on January 4, 1972, again adding Rs. 1,16,184 as income from undisclosed sources.The assessee filed another appeal, introducing a new ground challenging the initiation of proceedings u/s 147(a). The AAC accepted this challenge, citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, and held that the ITO was not justified in invoking section 147(a), thus canceling the reassessment order.The Department's appeal argued that the AAC had no jurisdiction to entertain this ground as it was not raised in the initial appeal. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the scope of the fresh reassessment and subsequent appeal was limited to the issues raised initially.The court held that the formation of belief by the ITO regarding income escapement is a condition precedent for reassessment jurisdiction. The AAC has the jurisdiction to entertain new grounds challenging the ITO's jurisdiction, even if not raised initially. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, which supports the AAC's wide powers to entertain new grounds.The court concluded that a ground challenging the jurisdiction to reassess can be raised at any stage, even in collateral proceedings. The AAC was justified in entertaining the new ground, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside.Conclusion:The court answered the question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, holding that the AAC was justified in entertaining the ground regarding the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147(a). No order as to costs was issued.
TaxTMI 