TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] claiming that the reopening of the assessment and framing the impugned assessment order is bad in law and beyond jurisdiction. 3. Since this issue goes to the root of the matter, we proceed to decide this at the outset. 4. Facts emanating from the assessment records reveal that during the year under consideration return, of income was filed on 31.10.2001, declaring income at Rs. 71,540/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, books of account were produced and test checked. Subseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The case for Assessment Year 2001-02 was assessed u/s 143(3). It is therefore requested that the necessary approval may kindly be obtained from CIT, Delhi-11, New Delhi, as per the provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 6. As mentioned elsewhere, the original assessment order was framed vide order dated 27.02.2004 and completed assessment has been reopened vide notice dated 27.07.2008. It can be safely concluded that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, First proviso to section 147 of the Act squarely apply and the same is as under:- "Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the proviso to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action under section 147 could be taken. We have already mentioned above that the reasons supplied to the petitioner does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year period remains unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd.'s we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act have already been reproduced above. A bare perusal of the same shows that the satisfaction recorded therein is merely about escapement of income. There is not even a whisper of an allegation that such escapement had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Absence of this finding, which is a "sine quo non" for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act in a case falling under the proviso thereto, makes the action taken by the AO wholly without jurisdiction. As already observed, the learned counsel for the Revenue has conceded that neither in the reasons recorded nor in the order dt. 13t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le belief that income has escaped assessment but also the default or failure committed by the assessee. Failure to do so would vitiate the notice and the entire proceedings. The relevant words in the proviso are, ".......unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee....." Mere escape of income is insufficient to justify the initiation of action after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. Such escapement must be by reason of the failure on ITA No. 98/RPR/2012 & C.O. No. 01/RPR/16 and Others . A.Y. 2004-05 6 the part of the assessee either to file a return referred to in the proviso or to truly and fully disclose the mat....