2016 (9) TMI 512 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms assessing officer's jurisdiction under Income-tax Act, dismissing appeal

The High Court upheld the assessing officer's jurisdiction under Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, dismissing the appeal against the order in WP ... Reopening of assessment - time limit to raise objections - Held that:- Admittedly, the objection was not raised by the appellants within 30 days even from the date of issuance of notice under Section 148. The objection was raised by a letter dated 29th April, 2015 and the notices under Section 148 were received on 27th March, 2015. It is not also possible to contend that the period of limitation shall commence only from the date of issuance of the notice under Section 148. Notice under Section 148 was issued because prior thereto search and seizure was conducted and thereafter survey was conducted presumably leading to incriminating discovery. Thereafter documents were impounded and it is on the basis of these steps that the notice under Section 148 was issued. Each one of these steps was taken subsequent to 15th November, 2014 but the writ petitioner did not raise any objection. The assessee had questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the assessing officer and the assessing officer held that the assessee had lost the right to raise the objection by efflux of time. We, as such, find no substance in the case of the appellant. Issues:1. Challenge to jurisdiction under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act and related notices.2. Disposal of writ petition and subsequent response to petitioner's letter.3. Challenge to subsequent notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act.4. Appeal against the order dismissing WP No.1172 of 2015.5. Interpretation of Section 124(3) regarding jurisdictional objections by the assessee.6. Comparison with relevant case laws and legal principles.Issue 1:The appellants challenged the survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act and related notices issued under Sections 131 and 148 for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, alleging lack of jurisdiction by the respondents after a specific notification. The writ petition was disposed with a direction to the Income Tax Officer to respond to the petitioner's letter dated 29th April, 2015.Issue 2:The subsequent response by the Income Tax Officer to the petitioner's letter dated 29th April, 2015, emphasized the validity of the survey conducted, the lack of challenge to jurisdiction during the survey, and the compliance with legal procedures. The appellants challenged this response and the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, leading to the filing of WP No.1172 of 2015.Issue 3:WP No.1172 of 2015 was dismissed, upholding the assessing officer's jurisdiction under Section 124(3) of the Act. The appellants appealed this decision, questioning the legality of the assessing officer's actions post the effective date of the CBDT circular. The High Court analyzed the contentions regarding jurisdiction and the application of Section 124(3) in detail.Issue 4:The appeal against the dismissal of WP No.1172 of 2015 revolved around the contention that the assessing officer's actions post the circular's effective date were without jurisdiction. The appellants argued that the assessing officer's authority was affected by the circular, rendering subsequent steps invalid.Issue 5:The interpretation of Section 124(3) was crucial in determining the validity of the assessing officer's actions post the circular's effective date. The High Court analyzed the timeline of events, the objections raised by the appellants, and the legal implications of challenging jurisdiction under the Act.Issue 6:The comparison with relevant case laws, such as Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. I.T.O, Rampur and CIT-III Vs. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., provided insights into the legal principles governing jurisdictional objections by the assessee. The court considered the applicability of Section 124(3) and the timing of raising objections to the assessing officer's jurisdiction. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the assessing officer's jurisdiction and adherence to legal procedures.