IMPERIAL FURNISHERS vs. I T O JAIPUR

ITA/4/2003HC RajasthanRJHC02034246200304 October 20164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Imperial Furnishers, a partnership firm, filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) while confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The dispute pertains to reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the levy of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215/217. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed specific questions for determination. The AO's order noted that penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(a), 273, and 271(1)(c) were issued separately. The ITAT had directed the AO to adjudicate the interest issue as per law.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed the two issues framed. On the first issue, concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Court held that the AO had not applied the amended provisions. In light of this, and the fact that the return was not filed under Section 148, the Court answered the first issue against the assessee and in favour of the department. For the second issue, regarding the levy of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215/217, the Court stated that the department would follow the decisions of the Allahabad High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court in accordance with the Act and Rules. This implies that the interest levy would be decided based on these precedents. The Court then clarified that the first issue was answered in favour of the department, and the second issue would be decided as per the cited judgments, which were interpreted as favouring the assessee and against the department. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

The High Court was called upon to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether the findings of the respondent (Revenue) and the ITAT regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were without evidence, perverse, and contrary to the material on record. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in sustaining the levy of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Income Tax Act in a reassessment case. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the findings of the Revenue and ITAT were perverse and without evidence. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Foramer Vs. CIT and the Patna High Court decision in Ranchi Handloom Emporium Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee also pointed to the AO's observation that penalty proceedings were issued separately, implying a specific approach to the assessment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, relied on decisions of the Allahabad High Court (CIT, Kanpur Vs. D.S. Batra; CIT Vs. Oswal Exports) and the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Darshan Lal Gulati Vs. CIT, Jalandhar). They contended that the AO had applied unamended provisions, and therefore, the assessment made was just and proper. They argued that the ITAT's order remanding the case as per law and in view of binding decisions was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 139(8),Section 215,Section 217,Section 271(1)(a),Section 273,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.04/2003. M/s Imperial Furnishers, A partnership firm with its office at No.2916, Tiwari Building, Opp. Niros Restaurant, M.I. Road, Jaipur- 302001 (Rajasthan) through its Partner Shri Charanjeet Singh S/o Late Sardar Jaswant Singh Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan Now Juri iction vest with Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2), Jaipur. DATE OF ORDER ::: 04.10.2016. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Siddharth Ranka for the appellant. Mr. Anuroop Singhi for the respondent.

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has remanded back to the AO confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals).

2.

This Court while admitting the appeal framed following two questions by order dated 10.02.2003:

“1. Whether the findings arrived at by the respondent and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are without evidence and contrary to the material on record, are perverse and have vitiated the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →