SH. KAMARUDDIN MANSORI S/O SH. MOHMMAD USMAN MANSORI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The appeal was filed by the assessee, Sh. Kamaruddin Mansori, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated, but the reopening of the case under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 occurred after a period of 7 years. The notice under Section 148 bears the date 31.03.2017. The assessee contended that the ITAT failed to examine the issue of limitation raised before it, despite the reopening being beyond the statutory period.

Held

The High Court held that the appeal could not be admitted as a substantial question of law would arise only on a factual foundation, which was absent. The Court noted that the assessee's argument on limitation was not supported by a factual assertion that the notice under Section 148, though dated 31.03.2017, was not issued on that date but dispatched thereafter. The Court acknowledged that the ITAT had not recorded any finding on the issue of limitation. However, in the absence of any factual foundation to support the claim of limitation, the argument was considered to lack substance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer who reopened the case under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 after a period of 7 years, when reassessment cannot be done after 4 years? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT did not examine the issue of limitation, which was specifically raised as a ground. The assessee further contended that while the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bears the date 31.03.2017, it is the date of dispatch, not the date of the notice itself, that should be considered. The assessee relied on the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Kanubhai M Patel HUF Vs. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office & 4 respondent(s) reported in SCA/5295/2010 decided on 13.07.2010. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue on this issue.