COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHUSHAN KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1148 / 2009HC Delhi07 September 20104 pages
For Petitioner: RASHMI CHOPRA
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal for assessment year 1994-95, finding the notice under Section 148 invalid. For assessment year 1995-96, the court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal due to a factual error in its previous decision.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, where the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had held that the issuance of these notices was invalid.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of notices issued under Section 148, particularly concerning the timing of references to the DVO relative to the completion of original assessments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI {ITA No.1148 of 2009}

Judgment delivered on:07.09.2010

... APPELLANT

... RESPONDENT

CORAM:-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (oral)

1.

For Orders, see ITA No.1135 of 2009.

A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 7,2010

skb

![](_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

{ITA No.1135 of 2009} & {ITA No.1148 of 2009}

Judgment delivered on:07.09.2010

ITA No.1135 of 2009

... APPEŁLANT

.. RESPONDENT

(2) <u>ITA No.1148 of 2009</u>

... APPELLANT

. . RESPONDENT

CORAM:-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (oral)

1.

These two appeals pertain to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. In respect of both these assessment years, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 148 of the Asternal

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide impugned judgment mereby appeals of both the years have been decided) held that e issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act were not valid. In his behalf, we find from the orders of the Tribunal that it is recorded hat the original assessment under Section 143 (3) was completed on 18<sup>th</sup> March, 1997 and reference was made to the DVO on 27<sup>th</sup> March, 1998. Thus, according to the Tribunal since this reference was made to the DVO after the completion of the assessment, this was not permissible. However, these are the dates which pertain to the assessment year 1994-05 only. In so far as assessment year 1995-96 is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent assessee that assessment was completed only on 25th March, 1998 whereas reference to DVO was made before that i.e. $27^{th}$ March, 1998. It is clear therefrom that on the aforesaid premise, the notice under Section 148 of the Act in respect of assessment year 1994-05 only could be set aside.

- 2. Thus, in so far as ITA 1148/2009 is concerned, which pertains to the assessment year 1994-95 is hereby dismissed. - 3. As far as ITA 1135/2009 for the assessment year 1995-06 is concerned, since there is a factual error and Tribunal has not considered that assessment year was completed on 25<sup>th</sup> March, 1998 and matter was referred before that on 27<sup>th</sup> January, 1998, discussion contained in the last sub paragraph of para 7 qua this assessment year would not be valid. The observation of the Tribunal that in view of this judgment of the Jurisdictional Court in Bawa

set aside the order of the Tribunal so far as it relates to the assessment year 1995-06 is concerned.

4.

We may state that we have not otherwise arrived at any finding as to whether judgment in Bawa Abhai Singh (supra) would be applicable or not. However, it is also necessary to record that learned counsel for the revenue had also argued that the observations of the Tribunal in para 7.9 wherein the Tribunal has observed that the assessee produced the requisite details asked for by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment is also not correct as in the 'reasons to believe' it is specifically recorded that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee justified the investment but the correct and complete details of investment were not filed. We only observe that this is again a matter to be argued before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall apply its independent mind while dealing with this appeal afresh. ITA 1135/2009 is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(REVA KHETRAPAL)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 7,2010 skb

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →