TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (2) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al loss of Rs. 2,14,025 only. In the assessment, there were wrong deductions allowed for provision of interest of Rs. 5,19,486 on unpaid municipal tax liability as debited prior to the same being quantified/levied by the Calcutta Corporation. Add. excise duty for Rs. 11,34,704 was also wrongly allowed as deduction, although such liability was ascertained subsequent to 1983-84 assessment year. Thirdly, expenses of Rs. 12,46,235 only relating to earlier years but merged with the claim for current expenses (as certified by the relevant audit report in Schedule 'E', serial No. 11 thereof) was wrongly allowed in the assessment, although the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting generally. For this mistake, there was underassessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year." (emphasis supplied). The proviso to section 147 is material for our purpose. It will be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts or not. From the order of assessment and from the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition it will be evident that all particulars had been shown and/or disclosed by the assessee in the course of the original assessment. The notice impugned is dated June 26, 1990, and the assessment year involved is 1983-84 and, accordingly, the notice should have been issued on or before March 31, 1988, for reassessing the escaped income or to rectify underassessment which had occurred in the original assessment. But since the notice has been issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not help the respondents. Even assuming that the law prevailing at the relevant time is applicable, still then the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 after the expiry of four years unless there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in connection with the assessment which is not the case here. Mr. Mitra also relied on the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC) for the proposition that the court is not concerned with the sufficiency of the Income-tax Officer's belief. That being not justiciable, the Supreme Court allowed the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n regular appeal proceedings in respect of notice issued on the basis of the Departmental valuer's valuation. But whether the court has jurisdiction or not was not decided in that case as it appears from the said note of the Supreme Court. Whether in a case the writ court should exercise jurisdiction shall depend on its facts. Where initiation of proceedings is palpably devoid of jurisdiction either for bar of limitation of time or the conditions precedent being absent, it is not fair to allow the Revenue authority to proceed with such invalid exercise of jurisdiction specially when remedy in appeal is a long drawn-out process. It is now well-settled that the Income-tax Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen an assessment wrongly unl....