1979 (11) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Court affirms ITO jurisdiction to issue notice under sec 148; challenges sufficiency of reasons for assessment reopening

The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act, finding that the ITO had validly ... Delay In Writ Application, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the ITO to issue notice under s. 148 of the Act.2. Sufficiency of reasons for reopening the assessment.3. Delay in filing the petition challenging the notice under s. 148 of the Act.4. Validity of the draft order under s. 144B of the Act in reassessment proceedings.Jurisdiction of the ITO to issue notice under s. 148 of the Act:The petitioner, assessed as an HUF for the year 1973-74, challenged the reopening of assessment under s. 147(a) of the Act. The ITO issued a notice under s. 148 to explain why certain income should not be added to the petitioner's income based on previous findings. The court held that the ITO had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under s. 147(a) as the petitioner failed to disclose primary facts, justifying the notice under s. 148.Sufficiency of reasons for reopening the assessment:The ITO reopened the assessment based on undisclosed income from a partial partition and subsequent gifts. The petitioner contended that all necessary information was disclosed, but the court found the disclosed note vague and insufficient. The court ruled that the sufficiency of reasons could be challenged in appeal, and the ITO had jurisdiction to proceed under s. 147 of the Act.Delay in filing the petition challenging the notice under s. 148 of the Act:The notice under s. 148 was issued in 1975, and the petition challenging it was filed in 1979. The petitioner argued that subsequent objections and proceedings justified the delay. However, the court held that the delay was unjustified, dismissing the petition on the ground of delay despite subsequent steps taken by the petitioner.Validity of the draft order under s. 144B of the Act in reassessment proceedings:The petitioner contended that the draft order under s. 144B in reassessment proceedings was illegal. The court held that the petitioner could raise this objection in appeal from the order of assessment, as the provisions of s. 144B apply to original assessments, not reassessments. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to raise objections in the appeal process if necessary.