Income tax reassessment reopening after scrutiny u/s143(3) for previously examined issues, barred beyond four years; SLP dismissed. Reassessment notice issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY was held invalid because an assessment had been completed under s.143(3), ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Income tax reassessment reopening after scrutiny u/s143(3) for previously examined issues, barred beyond four years; SLP dismissed.
Reassessment notice issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY was held invalid because an assessment had been completed under s.143(3), attracting the proviso to s.147, and the alleged escapement issue had already been examined during the original scrutiny; consequently, reopening was barred. The SLP challenging the HC order was not entertained due to an unexplained gross delay of 483 days in filing, and was in any event rejected on merits for lack of grounds to interfere; accordingly, the SLP was dismissed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) primarily on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The Court recorded a "gross delay of 483 days in filing the Special Leave Petition" and held that this delay had "not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner." This failure to justify the prolonged delay in approaching the Court warranted rejection of the SLP on the ground of limitation. Additionally, the Court observed that "even otherwise, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court," thereby dismissing the SLP "on the ground of delay as well as merits." Pending applications were also disposed of.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
