PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SHRI RAJESH BHATIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/119/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02020992201810 April 20182 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The Court noted that the Tribunal relied on its own decision in the case of Loku Ram Malik vs. CIT, ITA No. 142/2006, decided on 3rd May, 2017. While acknowledging that other High Courts might have taken different views, the High Court emphasized that the Tribunal is bound by the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, based on the binding precedent of Loku Ram Malik, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The appeal was consequently dismissed. The specific findings on the merits of the additions or the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 148, beyond the reliance on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, were not elaborated upon as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law arising.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue, Jaipur, has filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had allowed the appeal of the assessee, Shri Rajesh Bhatia. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision to invalidate reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue contends that the ITAT erred in its findings, particularly concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the subsequent deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The procedural history indicates that the matter reached the High Court after the ITAT's decision in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

The substantial questions of law framed by the appellant (Revenue) are: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding reassessment proceedings under Section 148 to be invalid solely because time was available for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) in the original assessment, despite no embargo on issuing a Section 148 notice when Section 143(2) time was available? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in disregarding judgments of various High Courts and the fact that the necessary ingredients for initiating reassessment proceedings were fulfilled, with no bar to their initiation? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on merits, and deleting them merely by deeming the reassessment proceedings invalid? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in considering the validity of reassessment proceedings when this issue was not raised before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A)? Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record specific contentions for the assessee. Revenue: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal was bound by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Loku Ram Malik vs. CIT, ITA No. 142/2006, decided on 3rd May, 2017. They also contended that different High Courts have taken different views on the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 119/2018 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, Jaipur Raj ----Appellant Versus Shri Rajesh Bhatia, A-84, Atre Path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur Raj ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 10/04/2018 By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding the re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 to be invalid merely on the ground that time was available to the Assessing Officer for issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the original assessment proceedings, ignoring that there is no embargo in issuing notice u/s 148 even when the time was available for issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the judgments passed by various Hon’ble Courts and the fact that the necessary ingredients for initiation of reassessment proceedings were duly fulfilled and there is no bar for initiation of the same?

(2 of 2) [ITA-119/2018] iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on merits and deleting the same merely by holding the reassessment proceedings to be invalid. iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in considering the issue with respect to validity of reassessment proceedings, when the same was neither raised before Assessing Officer nor before CIT(A)?” The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Loku Ram Malik vs. CIT, ITA No. 142/2006 decided on 3rd May, 2017. Though it is contended that different High Courts have taken different view but in our considered opinion, the Tribunal was bound by the jurisdictional High Court decision. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J A.Sharma/128

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →