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>Notice Under Section 148 Quashed: Invalid Issuance After 4-Year Limit Without Non-Disclosure of Facts for 2014-15 Assessment</h1> <h3>ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (3) (1), Mumbai, Union of India.</h3> ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (3) (1), Mumbai, Union of India. - 2025:BHC - OS:2249 - DB The High Court of Bombay considered a petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The key legal issues presented and analyzed in the judgment are as follows:Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is valid despite being issued after the expiry of the 4-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year.2. Whether there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, justifying the re-opening of the assessment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:- Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for the procedure for reassessment.- The first proviso to Section 147 imposes a limitation of 4 years for initiating reassessment proceedings unless there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.- Precedents such as Hindustan Unilever Limited v. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 were cited regarding the requirement of disclosing material facts for reassessment.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:- The Court noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued after the 4-year period, triggering the applicability of the first proviso to Section 147.- The Court emphasized that for re-assessment, there must be an allegation of failure to disclose material facts, supported by specific details of what was not disclosed.- The Court found that the reasons for re-opening did not allege any failure to disclose material facts and, in fact, the information was based on documents submitted by the petitioner during the assessment proceedings.- The Court concluded that the re-assessment proceedings lacked a valid ground for re-opening and should be quashed.Key Evidence and Findings:- The petitioner had submitted all relevant details along with the return of income during the assessment proceedings.- The Court highlighted that the assessing officer had raised queries during the assessment process, and the petitioner had responded to these queries adequately.- The issue in question had been discussed in the assessment order, indicating that there was no failure to disclose material facts.Application of Law to Facts:- The Court applied the provisions of Section 147 and the relevant case law to determine the validity of the re-assessment notice.- It analyzed the facts presented, including the petitioner's compliance with queries and the absence of any failure to disclose material facts.Treatment of Competing Arguments:- The petitioner argued that the notice should be quashed due to the absence of any failure to disclose material facts.- The respondent contended that there was a misrepresentation by the petitioner regarding a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) and that this constituted a failure to disclose material facts.Conclusions:- The Court held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.- The Court relied on previous decisions, including one involving the same petitioner, to support its conclusion.- The Court quashed the impugned notice and set aside the re-assessment proceedings.Significant Holdings:- The Court's decision emphasized the importance of disclosing all material facts for re-assessment under Section 147.- The judgment established that re-assessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion by the assessing officer without any failure to disclose material facts.In conclusion, the Bombay High Court's judgment in this case focused on the necessity of demonstrating a failure to disclose material facts for the validity of re-assessment under the Income-tax Act, ultimately leading to the quashing of the impugned notice in this instance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
