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>Dismissal of Writ Petition Upholding Income Tax Reopening Based on Tangible Material</h1> <h3>Phoenix Poultry Versus Assistant & Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur</h3> Phoenix Poultry Versus Assistant & Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur - TMI Issues:1) Challenge to Show Cause Notice and Order rejecting objections2) Validity of reopening assessment and objections raised3) Reopening based on change of opinion or substantial income escaping assessment4) Availability of statutory remedy for challenging assessmentIssue 1: The petitioner sought to set aside the Show Cause Notice and Order rejecting objections against the reopening of assessment. The petitioner, a partnership concern engaged in various business activities, received a Show Cause Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner demanded reasons for the reopening of assessment, which were provided along with the requisite approval. The objections raised by the petitioner were subsequently rejected by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax.Issue 2: During the proceedings, a fresh assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer, which the petitioner sought to file along with an application for amendment. The Revenue opposed this, arguing that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy of appeal before challenging the assessment order. The Revenue contended that the amendment application and the writ petition should be rejected on this ground.Issue 3: The petitioner contested the reopening of assessment on the grounds of full and true disclosure in the Profit & Loss account, arguing against the need for reopening based on a mere change of opinion. However, it was acknowledged that a substantial part of the income had escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of the assessment. The Revenue supported the reopening, emphasizing that it was not solely based on a change of opinion but on tangible material indicating income escapement.Issue 4: The High Court analyzed the legal principles governing reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in ITO Vs. Techspan India (P) LTD., it was highlighted that reassessment cannot be done solely due to a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The Court emphasized the need for tangible material linking to the belief of income escapement for a valid reassessment. In this case, the Court found that there was tangible material indicating income escapement, justifying the reopening of assessment. The Court concluded that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedies provided under the Income Tax Act to challenge the reopening and the subsequent assessment order.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue legal remedies available under the law against the reopening of assessment and the fresh assessment order. The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies for challenging the assessment process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
