Court upholds validity of notice under Income Tax Act, dismissing challenge. Re-assessment due to disclosure discrepancies.

The court upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the petitioner's challenge. The Assessing Officer initiated re-assessment proceedings due to discrepancies in the petitioner's disclosures, leading to an income of Rs. 1,07,24,386/- escaping assessment. The court emphasized that the review process is not a re-hearing and must focus on correcting apparent errors. The petitioner's arguments regarding disclosure and applicability of case law were deemed unsuitable for review. Ultimately, the court found no error in the original judgment and dismissed the review application without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Scope and grounds for review of the judgment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner challenged the validity of a notice dated 26-03-2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was dismissed by the court on 18-04-2022. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) initiated re-assessment proceedings based on the discovery that the petitioner received payments under Section 194 J but did not show these receipts in its Profit and Loss Account. Additionally, the petitioner failed to disclose the amount of reimbursement of expenses claimed and the actual amount received, and did not produce ledgers, bills, and vouchers for verification. The A.O. concluded that the petitioner did not make a “full and true” disclosure of all material facts, leading to an income of Rs. 1,07,24,386/- escaping assessment. The court held that there was prima facie material available for issuing the notice under Section 148, and thus, dismissed the writ petition.

2. Scope and Grounds for Review of the Judgment:

The petitioner filed for a review of the judgment, arguing that the payments under Section 194 J were reflected in 26 AS and reconciled during the original assessment, and the difference explained through a letter dated 12-02-2015. The court emphasized that review cannot be treated as an appeal and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, which do not require long-drawn reasoning or where there can be no two opinions.

The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury and Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, to explain that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require lengthy arguments.

The petitioner’s contention that it had disclosed all material facts and provided necessary documents was deemed a disputed question of fact, unsuitable for resolution in a review petition. The court reiterated that the petitioner was seeking a re-hearing, which is impermissible in a review. The petitioner will have the opportunity to present its case during re-assessment proceedings.

The petitioner also argued that the judgment in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. was case-specific and not applicable to its case. The court disagreed, stating that the ratio of the judgment, which allows for re-assessment based on prima facie material, applies universally unless specific peculiar facts are demonstrated.

Regarding the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal, the court noted that reassessment can be initiated based on fresh facts or information exposing the untruthfulness of previously disclosed facts. The A.O. had valid reasons to believe that the petitioner did not fully disclose material facts, justifying the reassessment.

The petitioner’s claim that various case laws were not considered was also rejected. The court clarified that it referred to and relied upon relevant case laws, and was not obliged to address every judgment cited in post-submission compilations.

Conclusion:

The court found no “error apparent on the face of the record” in the judgment dated 18-04-2022, and thus, dismissed the review application. There was no order as to costs.

---