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>Court sets aside notice under section 148 for assessment year 2013-2014, rules in favor of petitioner</h1> <h3>DHIRAJLAL GANDALAL MEHTA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7 (2) (1) OR HIS SUCCESSOR</h3> DHIRAJLAL GANDALAL MEHTA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7 (2) (1) OR HIS SUCCESSOR - TMI Issues:Challenge against notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment for the assessment year 2013-2014 and rejection of objections against reopening.Analysis:Issue 1: Reopening of AssessmentThe Special Civil Application challenged a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 2013-2014. The notice was based on the Assessing Officer's belief that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment. The petitioner requested reasons for reopening, which were provided after issuing a notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The petitioner objected to the reopening, stating that the transactions in question were partners' capital withdrawals, supported by relevant documents. The assessing officer's reasons for reopening were based on financial transactions that remained unexplained in the petitioner's hands.Issue 2: Legal ArgumentsThe petitioner argued that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and that there was no escapement of income. The petitioner contended that the conditions for reopening under section 147 were not met, as there was no failure to disclose material facts. The respondent, however, relied on the affidavit-in-reply, stating that substantial income had been omitted to be taxed, supported by the decisions in relevant case laws.Issue 3: Escapement of IncomeThe court emphasized that for validly exercising powers to reopen assessment, there must be escapement of income in the assessee's hands for the relevant year. The record showed that the petitioner had explained the transactions and provided necessary details even before the notice under section 148 was issued. It was established that the amount received was partners' capital and had a valid source, used for loan repayment, negating any escapement of taxable income.Issue 4: Legal PrecedentsThe court referred to a previous judgment where the jurisdiction to reopen assessment beyond four years without failure to disclose material facts was deemed unlawful. In this case, the assessing officer failed to establish non-disclosure of material facts, rendering the exercise of powers to reopen assessment invalid.Conclusion:The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the notice under section 148 issued for the assessment year 2013-2014 and the order rejecting objections to reopening. The court found that there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax, and the assessing officer's decision to reopen assessment was deemed unlawful. The petitioner's petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
