M/S AMRIT TRD. CO JIND vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/337/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075637200519 January 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the reassessment proceedings in violation of Section 151 of the Act. It was undisputed that the original assessment was made under Section 143(3) and reassessment was initiated without the mandatory sanction under Section 151. The Tribunal had erroneously allowed the department's appeal by assuming the assessment was under Section 143(1)(a), when it was actually under Section 143(3). The Court noted that the Tribunal itself had upheld the CIT(A)'s view in similar cases where assessment was under Section 143(3) and reassessment was initiated without Section 151 sanction, holding such notices to be in contravention of Section 151. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were not legally sustainable. The questions of law were answered accordingly. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Amrit Trading Company, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order dated 30.11.2004 in I.T.A. No.958/Chandi/96 had restored reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The original assessment for the relevant year(s) was made under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.2.1991. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued for reassessment. The CIT(A) had set aside the reassessment, holding that sanction under Section 151 was not obtained. The ITAT initially set aside the CIT(A)'s view, stating Section 151 was not required for assessments under Section 143(1)(a). However, the present case involved an assessment under Section 143(3).

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether reassessment proceedings initiated merely on the basis of a communication dated 12.12.1992 without reasonable grounds are legally sustainable? 2. Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by ignoring the mandatory sanction under Section 151 are legally sustainable? 3. Whether consignment sales were wrongly held to be trading sales without proper investigation and based on presumption? 4. Whether the authorities acted on their own presumption, making their actions legally unsustainable? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that reassessment proceedings were initiated without reasonable grounds and that the mandatory sanction under Section 151 was ignored. They also contended that consignment sales were wrongly treated as trading sales based on presumption. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not dispute that in the present case, the assessment was under Section 143(3) and reassessment was initiated without Section 151 sanction, which was impermissible. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on other issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 151,Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.337 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2011 M/s Amrit Trading Company. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate and Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.K. Mehta, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 30.11.2004 in I.T.A. No.958/Chandi/96 claiming following substantial question of law:- “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the authorities below in initiating the reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of communication dated 12.12.1992 without any reasonable ground having rational connection, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the authorities below in initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act by ignoring the sanction provided under section 151 of the Act which is mandatory, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the authorities below in holding the consignment sales to be the sales on account of trading without investigating the same appropriately and acting on its own presumption is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the authorities below in acting on its own presumption is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?”

2.

The Assessing Officer made assessment in respect of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.2.1991. Thereafter, notice dated 15.2.1993 was issued under Section 148 of the Act for reassessment and accordingly, reassessment was made. On appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the reassessment on the ground that no sanction under Section 151 of the Act had been obtained. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the view taken by the CIT(A) on the ground that sanction under Section 151 of the Act was not required where earlier assessment was under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were restored. The appeal of the assessee in respect of the assessment years where assessment had been made under Section 143(1)(a) and not 143(3) of the Act were dismissed vide order dated 5.1.2011 being I.T.A. No.338 of 2005 M/s Amrit Trading Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) & another and connected matters. However, the present case was separated.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4.

It is not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that in the present case, assessment had already been made under Section 143(3) of the Act and reassessment was initiated without sanction under Section 151 of the Act, which was not permissible. The Tribunal itself upheld the view of the CIT(A) in cases where assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act and reassessment was initiated without following section 151 of the Act with the following observations:- 10............Therefore, in that view of the matter, by respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 29.10.2004, we dismiss the departmental appeals on this issue in the aforesaid two cases by holding that notices under section 148 had been issued to the assessees in contravention of section 151.....”

5.

Without noticing the fact that in the present case assessment under section 143(3) of the Act had been made, appeal of the department was allowed, on the ground that section 151 of the Act was not applicable, under an erroneous assumption that assessment had been made under Section 143 (1)(a) and not under Section 143 of the Act. This being the undisputed position, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding reassessment proceedings in violation of Section 151 of the Act. The questions are answered accordingly.

The appeal is allowed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 19, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →