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>Invalidation of Reassessment: High Court emphasizes statutory procedures, rules in favor of assessee</h1> <h3>Rawatmal Harakchand Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Rawatmal Harakchand Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1981] 129 ITR 346, 7 CTR 157 Issues involved: Reassessment of income u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with s. 274(2), validity of reassessment proceedings, waiver by the assessee, interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Summary:The High Court of Calcutta addressed a case involving the reassessment of an assessee's income for the assessment year 1957-58. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) brought two sums to tax, alleging they had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose necessary particulars. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed by the Income-tax Appellate Commissioner (IAC) under relevant sections of the IT Act.Upon appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld one sum but provided relief on the other. The Tribunal examined the validity of the reassessment under section 147(a) and found deficiencies in the ITO's recording of reasons and the Commissioner's approval process. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal deemed the notice under section 148 invalid due to missing prerequisites.The Tribunal proceeded to review the reassessment order on its merits, despite initial intentions to focus solely on validity. It decided to delete one sum but retain the other. Subsequently, questions were referred to the High Court by both the Commissioner and the assessee, seeking clarification on the Tribunal's decisions.The assessee argued that the entire proceedings should be invalidated due to the initial invalid notice, while the revenue contended that the assessee had waived objections by seeking partial relief earlier. Citing legal principles, the revenue argued for the validity of the reassessment.The High Court rejected the revenue's arguments, emphasizing that once the initiation of reassessment was deemed invalid, all subsequent actions should be invalidated. It concluded that the Tribunal erred in considering the merits of the additions after finding the initiation invalid.The Court answered the questions raised, ruling in favor of the assessee on the validity of reassessment and penalty cancellation. It highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and dismissed the revenue's waiver arguments. Ultimately, the Court held that all additions made in the reassessment were invalid due to the flawed initiation process.
TaxTMI 