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>Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh Decision, Emphasizes Addressing Substantial Legal Questions</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2 Versus M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2 Versus M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd. - [2019] 413 ITR 438 (SC) Issues involved:1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.2. Justifiability of addition made to the total income of the assessee.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 260A of the Act by the High Court.Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 148:The case involved a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking to reopen the assessment of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 2008-09. The notice proposed an addition to the total income of the assessee based on a document seized during a search operation at the premises of another assessee. The respondent-assessee objected to the notice on grounds of lack of factual foundation, absence of 'escaped assessment' case, and absence of 'reason to believe.' Despite objections, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add the proposed sum to the total income, justifying it as a case of escaped assessment with sufficient material. The CIT (appeal) upheld the addition, but the ITAT later set aside the order.Issue 2: Justifiability of addition to total income:The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed to the High Court under Section 260A of the Act, challenging the ITAT's decision. The High Court, however, dismissed the appeal without formulating any substantial question of law as required under Section 260A. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to follow the mandatory procedure, emphasizing that the questions framed by the Court are crucial for hearing the appeal. The Court highlighted the necessity for the High Court to address specific substantial questions of law related to the validity of the notice, existence of escaped assessment, and the basis for adding the sum to the total income.Issue 3: Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 260A:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court did not adhere to the prescribed procedure under Section 260A of the Act. It noted that the High Court should have framed substantial questions of law for consideration and provided a categorical finding if no substantial question arose. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the questions framed by the Court for hearing the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case for a fresh decision, instructing the High Court to address the specific substantial questions of law identified by the Supreme Court.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the High Court's handling of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of framing substantial questions of law and following the prescribed procedure under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 