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>Case Remitted for Procedural Fairness in Tax Assessment</h1> <h3>Mr. Krishnakumar J. Desai, Legal Heir of Late Mr. Jayendrakumar Kishanlal Desai, Chennai Versus Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Wad-7 (1), Chennai</h3> Mr. Krishnakumar J. Desai, Legal Heir of Late Mr. Jayendrakumar Kishanlal Desai, Chennai Versus Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Wad-7 (1), Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14.3. Disclosure of income and reasons for reopening the assessment.4. Representation of a deceased assessee in legal proceedings.5. Compliance with procedural requirements in tax assessment.Analysis:1. Validity of Section 148 Notice:The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2021. The notice was challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction as it was issued in the name of the deceased original assessee, despite the petitioner being the legal heir. The petitioner raised concerns about the procedural irregularity in issuing the notice to a deceased person and emphasized the need for proper representation in legal proceedings.2. Legality of Reopening Assessment under Section 147:The Revenue initiated proceedings to reopen the assessment under Section 147 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 based on reasons related to alleged undisclosed income. The petitioner contested the reopening, arguing that the same reason had been previously considered during a similar assessment that concluded with an accepted income disclosure. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the legal principle that the Revenue cannot reopen an assessment based on the same grounds without proper justification.3. Disclosure of Income and Reasons for Reopening:The Revenue cited reasons for reopening the assessment, including alleged undisclosed income related to share transactions. The petitioner challenged the sufficiency of these reasons, questioning the conclusiveness of the claim of long-term capital loss and the computation of taxable income. The petitioner emphasized the importance of full and true disclosure of all relevant materials in the return of income to avoid allegations of tax evasion.4. Representation of a Deceased Assessee:The issue of representing a deceased assessee in legal proceedings arose, with the petitioner highlighting the procedural error of continuing proceedings in the name of a deceased person. The petitioner's counsel argued that legal actions against a deceased individual are legally untenable and emphasized the need for accurate representation to ensure fair and lawful proceedings.5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The Court directed the assessing authority to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case and respond to the Section 148 notice. It instructed the assessing authority to compare the reasons for reopening the assessment with previous proceedings to ensure consistency and legality. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and fair treatment in tax assessment proceedings, underscoring the need for transparency and adherence to legal requirements.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition by remitting the matter to the assessing authority for further action in accordance with the provided directions, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and legal compliance in tax assessment processes.
TaxTMI 