Loading High Court cases…
237 orders · Page 4 of 5
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material and had applied his independent mind to the information regarding the penny stock transactions of Tuni Textiles Limited. The Court found that the AO formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and there was a live link between the material suggesting escapement and the formation of this belief. Therefore, the Court was satisfied that there was enough material before the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Regarding the issue of sanction under Section 151, the Court noted that the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the concerned authorities had given approval after due application of mind and expressed satisfaction with the reasons recorded for reopening. The Court disagreed with the contention that the AO merely relied on information and formed an opinion based on borrowed satisfaction. Consequently, the Court found no material or grounds to suggest that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was without authority of law. The Court concluded that the assessee failed to make out a case.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material before him to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had applied his independent mind to the information regarding the penny stock transactions in Tuni Textiles Ltd. and, upon due satisfaction, formed an opinion that the LTCG claimed by the assessee was chargeable to tax and had escaped assessment. This indicated a live link between the material suggesting escapement of income and the belief formed. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the Court noted that the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities had applied their minds. The Court disagreed with the contention that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction or that there was no material or grounds for the AO to assume jurisdiction. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was found to be in accordance with the law, rendering the notice sustainable. The writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The Court found that the AO had applied an independent mind to the information regarding penny stock transactions in Tuni Textile Ltd. and formed a satisfaction that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, establishing a live link between the information suggesting escapement and the belief formed. The Court also examined the issue of valid sanction under Section 151, noting that the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities had applied their mind. The Court disagreed with the contention that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction, stating that the AO's belief was not irrational. Therefore, the Court concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was not without the authority of law, making the notice sustainable. Consequently, the assessee failed to make out a case for quashing the notice.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found a live link between the material suggesting escapement of income (penny stock transactions in Karma Ispat Limited) and the AO's belief. The court disagreed with the contention that the AO had recorded reasons based on borrowed satisfaction, stating that the AO had applied his independent mind. Regarding the sanction, the court noted that the copy of the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities had granted approval after due application of mind and satisfaction with the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the court concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was not without authority of law and the notices were sustainable. The court found that the assessee failed to make out a case for quashing the notices.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found a live link between the material suggesting escapement of income (penny stock transactions in Karma Ispat Limited) and the AO's belief. The court disagreed with the contention that the AO had recorded reasons based on borrowed satisfaction, stating that the AO had applied his independent mind. Regarding the sanction, the court noted that the copy of the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities had granted approval after due application of mind and satisfaction with the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the court concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was not without authority of law and the notices were sustainable. The court found that the assessee failed to make out a case for quashing the notices.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the AO had applied his independent mind to the information regarding penny stock transactions in Karma Ispat Ltd. and formed a satisfaction that the claimed LTCG was chargeable to tax and had escaped assessment, establishing a live link between the material and the belief of escapement. The court disagreed with the contention that the reasons were vague or based on borrowed satisfaction. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the court noted that the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities had applied their minds and expressed satisfaction. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was not without authority of law. The writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material and applied independent mind to form the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court found that the information received was specific regarding penny stock transactions in Karma Ispat Limited, and the AO's satisfaction led to the opinion that the claimed LTCG was chargeable to tax and had escaped assessment. Therefore, there was a live link between the material suggesting escapement of income and the formation of belief. The court disagreed with the contention of borrowed satisfaction. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the court noted that the approval copy was provided at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities had given approval after due application of mind and expressed satisfaction. Consequently, the court found no material or grounds to suggest that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was without authority of law. The assessee failed to make out a case, and the writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material and applied an independent mind to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. The court found that the information regarding penny stock transactions in Karma Ispat Ltd. was specific, and the AO was satisfied that the claimed LTCG was chargeable to tax and had escaped assessment. This established a live link between the material suggesting escapement of income and the formation of belief. The court disagreed with the contention that the AO relied solely on borrowed satisfaction. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the court noted that the approval copy was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities granted approval after due application of mind and expressed satisfaction with the reasons recorded for reopening. Therefore, the court concluded that there was enough material before the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 147, and the assumption of jurisdiction was not without authority of law. The assessee failed to make out a case, and the writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Regarding the 'reason to believe', the court referred to established legal principles, including pronouncements from the Apex Court and the Gujarat High Court itself, emphasizing that the AO need not have finally ascertained facts by legal evidence at the initiation stage. The court found that the AO had applied an independent mind to the specific information concerning penny stock transactions in NCL Research Ltd. and the undisclosed time deposit, leading to a satisfaction that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. This indicated a live link between the material suggesting escapement and the AO's belief. The court also addressed the issue of valid sanction under Section 151, noting that the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the concerned authorities had granted approval after due application of mind. Consequently, the court found no merit in the assessee's contentions that the AO lacked material or grounds for assuming jurisdiction. The writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the AO had applied his independent mind to the information regarding penny stock transactions of Karma Ispat Limited and formed a belief that the LTCG claimed as exempt had escaped assessment. The court rejected the contention of borrowed satisfaction, stating there was a live link between the material suggesting escapement of income and the AO's belief. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the court noted that the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the authorities had applied their minds and expressed satisfaction. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was not without authority of law. The court concluded that the assessee failed to make out a case for quashing the notice.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the AO had applied his independent mind to the information received regarding penny stock transactions of Karma Ispat Limited. The court disagreed with the contention that the AO relied on borrowed satisfaction, stating that the information was specific and led to the formation of an opinion that the claim of long-term capital gains had escaped assessment, establishing a live link between the material and the belief of escapement. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the court noted that the approval was provided to the assessee at the stage of disposing of objections, indicating that the concerned authorities had given approval after due application of mind and expressed satisfaction. Therefore, the court concluded that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was not without authority of law and the notice was sustainable. The assessee failed to make out a case for quashing the notice.
The High Court held that the re-opening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified and was void ab initio. Both the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had concurrently found that the AO had not possessed any tangible material or new information to warrant the re-opening of the assessment. The original assessment under Section 143(3) had been completed after the assessee furnished all information called for under Section 142(1), and the AO had recorded that nothing adverse was found. The reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 did not indicate any adverse fact or new evidence. Therefore, the re-opening was based on the same set of facts available on record, constituting a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible for re-opening an assessment. The High Court found no infirmity in the ITAT's order and held that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment was not justified. The Court found that the assessee had disclosed the necessary documents, statements, and dates regarding the assets put to use during the previous scrutiny assessment. The failure to mention the date in Form 3CD was considered a technical mistake by the auditor, not an omission or failure by the assessee to disclose primary facts. The Court relied on the principle that once primary facts are before the assessing authority, it is for them to draw inferences, and if the Assessing Officer had examined the facts and not disallowed depreciation, it indicated an opinion was formed. The Court also held that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, which is impermissible, citing the judgment in Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT. Therefore, the impugned notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that all the substantial questions of law proposed by the Revenue were squarely covered by the decision of the same Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT(Exemptions) reported in 2017 396 ITR 323 (Guj.). Adopting the reasoning from that precedent, the Court found that none of the questions of law were res integra. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The judgment did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as it found all proposed questions to be covered by prior High Court rulings.
The High Court held that it should not interfere with the impugned show cause notices. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, the Court emphasized that the Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment and re-assessment, and an assessee cannot abandon this machinery to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 if an adequate alternative remedy exists. The Court found that the assessee had not described the alternate remedy as ineffectual and that the High Court had not exercised its jurisdiction with cogent reasons. The initial grievance regarding insufficient time and non-furnishing of reports was considered in light of the fact that the stay had operated for over two years. The Court concluded that the writ applications failed. However, in further proceedings, the Court clarified that the concerned authority shall hear the writ applicant before taking a final decision, subject to the aspect of limitation, even if the department believed the hearing had concluded.
The High Court held that the proposed transfer of the assessee's case from Gandhidham to Rajkot under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and did not warrant interference. The Court found the assessee's contentions regarding the basis of transfer, the nature of the action (survey vs. search), and the inconvenience to be misplaced. The Court reasoned that the transfer was necessary for coordinated and effective investigation, especially after incriminating material was found during the survey action concerning bogus entries and misused bank accounts by related parties. The Court noted that the prevalence of e-assessments rendered the assessee's arguments about physical inconvenience and the need for personal appearances moot. Furthermore, the Court found that the review or amendment of the previous order for centralization was permissible for administrative and operational convenience, particularly due to the limitations of the e-assessment system for Joint Commissioners. The Court relied on its own decision in Hindustan M.I. Swaco Limited, stating that transfers for effective investigation are not limited to search cases but can arise in other circumstances. Consequently, the writ applications were dismissed.
The High Court held that the proposed transfer of the assessee's case from Gandhidham to Rajkot under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and did not warrant interference. The Court found the assessee's contentions regarding the basis of transfer, the nature of the action (survey vs. search), and the inconvenience to be misplaced. The Court reasoned that the transfer was necessary for coordinated and effective investigation, especially after incriminating material was found during the survey action concerning bogus entries and misused bank accounts by related parties. The Court noted that the prevalence of e-assessments rendered the assessee's arguments about physical inconvenience and the need for personal appearances moot. Furthermore, the Court found that the review or amendment of the previous order for centralization was permissible for administrative and operational convenience, particularly due to the limitations of the e-assessment system for Joint Commissioners. The Court relied on its own decision in Hindustan M.I. Swaco Limited, stating that transfers for effective investigation are not limited to search cases but can arise in other circumstances. Consequently, the writ applications were dismissed.
The High Court held that the proposed transfer of the assessee's case from Gandhidham to Rajkot under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and did not warrant interference. The Court found the assessee's contentions regarding the basis of transfer, the nature of the action (survey vs. search), and the inconvenience to be misplaced. The Court reasoned that the transfer was necessary for coordinated and effective investigation, especially after incriminating material was found during the survey action concerning bogus entries and misused bank accounts by related parties. The Court noted that the prevalence of e-assessments rendered the assessee's arguments about physical inconvenience and the need for personal appearances moot. Furthermore, the Court found that the review or amendment of the previous order for centralization was permissible for administrative and operational convenience, particularly due to the limitations of the e-assessment system for Joint Commissioners. The Court relied on its own decision in Hindustan M.I. Swaco Limited, stating that transfers for effective investigation are not limited to search cases but can arise in other circumstances. Consequently, the writ applications were dismissed.
The High Court held that the proposed transfer of the assessee's case from Gandhidham to Rajkot under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and did not warrant interference. The Court found the assessee's contentions regarding the basis of transfer, the nature of the action (survey vs. search), and the inconvenience to be misplaced. The Court reasoned that the transfer was necessary for coordinated and effective investigation, especially after incriminating material was found during the survey action concerning bogus entries and misused bank accounts by related parties. The Court noted that the prevalence of e-assessments rendered the assessee's arguments about physical inconvenience and the need for personal appearances moot. Furthermore, the Court found that the review or amendment of the previous order for centralization was permissible for administrative and operational convenience, particularly due to the limitations of the e-assessment system for Joint Commissioners. The Court relied on its own decision in Hindustan M.I. Swaco Limited, stating that transfers for effective investigation are not limited to search cases but can arise in other circumstances. Consequently, the writ applications were dismissed.
The High Court held that the proposed transfer of the assessee's case from Gandhidham to Rajkot under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and did not warrant interference. The Court found the assessee's contentions regarding the basis of transfer, the nature of the action (survey vs. search), and the inconvenience to be misplaced. The Court reasoned that the transfer was necessary for coordinated and effective investigation, especially after incriminating material was found during the survey action concerning bogus entries and misused bank accounts by related parties. The Court noted that the prevalence of e-assessments rendered the assessee's arguments about physical inconvenience and the need for personal appearances moot. Furthermore, the Court found that the review or amendment of the previous order for centralization was permissible for administrative and operational convenience, particularly due to the limitations of the e-assessment system for Joint Commissioners. The Court relied on its own decision in Hindustan M.I. Swaco Limited, stating that transfers for effective investigation are not limited to search cases but can arise in other circumstances. Consequently, the writ applications were dismissed.
The High Court held that it should not interfere with the impugned show cause notices. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, the Court emphasized that the Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment and re-assessment, and an assessee cannot abandon this machinery to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 if an adequate alternative remedy exists. The Court found that the assessee had not described the alternate remedy as ineffectual and that the High Court had not exercised its jurisdiction with cogent reasons. The initial grievance regarding insufficient time and non-furnishing of reports was considered in light of the fact that the stay had operated for over two years. The Court concluded that the writ applications failed. However, in further proceedings, the Court clarified that the concerned authority shall hear the writ applicant before taking a final decision, subject to the aspect of limitation, even if the department believed the hearing had concluded.
The High Court held that the proposed transfer of the assessee's case from Gandhidham to Rajkot under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and did not warrant interference. The Court found the assessee's contentions regarding the basis of transfer, the nature of the action (survey vs. search), and the inconvenience to be misplaced. The Court reasoned that the transfer was necessary for coordinated and effective investigation, especially after incriminating material was found during the survey action concerning bogus entries and misused bank accounts by related parties. The Court noted that the prevalence of e-assessments rendered the assessee's arguments about physical inconvenience and the need for personal appearances moot. Furthermore, the Court found that the review or amendment of the previous order for centralization was permissible for administrative and operational convenience, particularly due to the limitations of the e-assessment system for Joint Commissioners. The Court relied on its own decision in Hindustan M.I. Swaco Limited, stating that transfers for effective investigation are not limited to search cases but can arise in other circumstances. Consequently, the writ applications were dismissed.
The High Court held that it should not interfere with the impugned recovery notice dated March 13, 2019. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's admission, through their counsel, that they were unable to deposit the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- by the stipulated date of April 26, 2019, as per the Court's earlier order. Since the condition precedent for the stay on coercive recovery was not met, the Court found no grounds to grant further relief. The writ application was accordingly rejected. No other issues were decided, and no specific amount in dispute beyond the Rs. 20,00,000/- condition was mentioned.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment was valid. Regarding the contention of non-compliance with Section 148(2), the court found that the reasons recorded were appropriately considered by the Assessing Officer, and there was tangible material to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. The court cited various precedents, including Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Bombay Pharma Products, stating that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief cannot be interfered with at this stage. Concerning Section 151, the court examined the sanctioning process and found that both the Additional Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner had applied their minds to the reasons recorded before granting sanction on March 31, 2019, the same date the notice was issued. Therefore, the contention that sanction was not obtained before issuance was rejected. The court also found that there was no 'borrowed satisfaction' and that the Assessing Officer had acted on tangible material, distinguishing the present case from those where the court had interfered. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the writ application. The Court found that there was tangible material before the Assessing Officer, derived from information received from the Directorate of Investigation concerning a money laundering scam. This information indicated that the assessee company had provided entry for funds to entities involved in the scam, specifically mentioning a transaction of Rs. 10.13 crores with M/s. Agni Gems Pvt. Ltd., which was also an alleged concern in the scam. The Court noted that the assessee had shown purchases from M/s. Agni Gems P. Ltd. during the relevant period, establishing a transaction. The Court held that the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The Court also found that the sanction under Section 151 of the Act was properly accorded by the competent authority, who had applied their mind and given satisfaction in writing. Relying on precedents like AGR Investment Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, the Court held that the sufficiency of reasons for reopening cannot be considered in a writ petition and that the AO had not proceeded mechanically. Therefore, the impugned notice was not without jurisdiction or contrary to Section 147 of the Act.
The High Court held that the writ application deserved to be dismissed. Regarding the contention that reasons were not recorded before issuing the notice, the Court noted that the reasons were furnished to the assessee and the approval under Section 151 was obtained. The Court found that the competent authority had given satisfaction in handwriting, expressing satisfaction with the recorded reasons and according sanction to issue the notice. Therefore, the sanction was granted on the date the notice was issued, and the contention that sanction was not obtained before issuance was rejected. The Court also found that there was tangible material before the Assessing Officer, and the Assessing Officer did not proceed mechanically. The Court relied on the principle that in a writ petition, the sufficiency of reasons for forming a belief cannot be interfered with, citing cases like AGR Investment Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court concluded that no case was made out for interference and dismissed the writ application.
The High Court dismissed the writ application. The Court held that there was tangible material before the Assessing Officer, which was not merely based on a change of opinion. The information received from the Directorate of Indirect Taxes, indicating the assessee's involvement in providing funds to entities linked to a money laundering scam, constituted a valid basis for forming a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The Court also found that the sanction under Section 151 was properly granted by the competent authority, who had applied their mind to the reasons recorded before issuing the notice. Citing precedents like AGR Investment Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, the Court reiterated that the sufficiency of reasons for reopening cannot be gone into in a writ petition, and the Assessing Officer had applied their mind to the available material. Therefore, the impugned notice was not without jurisdiction and was in accordance with Section 147 of the Act.
The High Court allowed the writ application, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated March 29, 2019, under Section 153C and the preliminary order dated October 16, 2019. The Court held that a notice issued to a deceased person is invalid and that assessment proceedings cannot continue against a dead person in the absence of specific statutory provisions. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Shabina Abraham (supra) that tax laws are made by the living to tax the living, and what survives a deceased person is their property. The Court also referred to the definition of 'assessee' in the Income Tax Act, which implies a living person. The reasoning was that the definition of 'person' under Section 2(31) of the Act does not include legal representatives of deceased persons, and the present tense used in definitions like 'assessee' indicates a living individual. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their literal wording, and equitable considerations are out of place. Therefore, since the Revenue could not bring the deceased within the letter of the law for the purpose of issuing a notice under Section 153C, the proceedings were not tenable.
The High Court allowed the writ application, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated March 29, 2019, under Section 153C and the preliminary order dated October 16, 2019. The Court held that a notice issued to a deceased person is invalid and that assessment proceedings cannot continue against a dead person in the absence of specific statutory provisions. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Shabina Abraham (supra) that tax laws are made by the living to tax the living, and what survives a deceased person is their property. The Court also referred to the definition of 'assessee' in the Income Tax Act, which implies a living person. The reasoning was that the definition of 'person' under Section 2(31) of the Act does not include legal representatives of deceased persons, and the present tense used in definitions like 'assessee' indicates a living individual. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their literal wording, and equitable considerations are out of place. Therefore, since the Revenue could not bring the deceased within the letter of the law for the purpose of issuing a notice under Section 153C, the proceedings were not tenable.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was justified in forming an opinion that income had escaped assessment. The Court reasoned that the information received from the investigation wing regarding transactions with M/s. Brown Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals, which was identified as a provider of accommodation entries and involved in hawala dealings, constituted tangible material. The Court found that the assessee had failed to disclose truly and fully all primary facts at the time of the previous assessment, preventing the Assessing Officer from drawing proper legal inferences regarding the alleged transactions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not prohibited from forming an opinion based on this new, tangible material. The Court dismissed the contention of change of opinion and lack of full disclosure, concluding that there was no jurisdictional error in issuing the impugned notice under Section 147 of the Act.
The High Court allowed the writ application, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice under Section 153C and the subsequent order. The Court held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is invalid and unsustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the principle that tax laws are intended to tax living individuals. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham and others vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, which held that assessment proceedings cannot continue against the legal representatives/estate of a deceased person after his death unless the statute specifically provides for it. The Court found that the definition of 'person' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not include legal representatives of deceased persons in this context. The present tense used in definitions like 'assessee' also implies a living person. Therefore, the notice issued to the deceased was a nullity, and all subsequent proceedings were consequently invalid. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their clear wording, and equitable considerations or assumptions cannot be imported.
The High Court allowed the writ application, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice under Section 153C and the subsequent order. The Court held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is invalid and unsustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the principle that tax laws are intended to tax living individuals. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham and others vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, which held that assessment proceedings cannot continue against the legal representatives/estate of a deceased person after his death unless the statute specifically provides for it. The Court found that the definition of 'person' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not include legal representatives of deceased persons in this context. The present tense used in definitions like 'assessee' also implies a living person. Therefore, the notice issued to the deceased was a nullity, and all subsequent proceedings were consequently invalid. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their clear wording, and equitable considerations or assumptions cannot be imported.
The High Court allowed the writ application, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice under Section 153C and the subsequent order. The Court held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is invalid and unsustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the principle that tax laws are intended to tax living individuals. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham and others vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, which held that assessment proceedings cannot continue against the legal representatives/estate of a deceased person after his death unless the statute specifically provides for it. The Court found that the definition of 'person' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not include legal representatives of deceased persons in this context. The present tense used in definitions like 'assessee' also implies a living person. Therefore, the notice issued to the deceased was a nullity, and all subsequent proceedings were consequently invalid. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their clear wording, and equitable considerations or assumptions cannot be imported.
The High Court allowed the writ application, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice under Section 153C and the subsequent order. The Court held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is invalid and unsustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the principle that tax laws are intended to tax living individuals. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham and others vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, which held that assessment proceedings cannot continue against the legal representatives/estate of a deceased person after his death unless the statute specifically provides for it. The Court found that the definition of 'person' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not include legal representatives of deceased persons in this context. The present tense used in definitions like 'assessee' also implies a living person. Therefore, the notice issued to the deceased was a nullity, and all subsequent proceedings were consequently invalid. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their clear wording, and equitable considerations or assumptions cannot be imported.
The High Court allowed the writ application, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated March 29, 2019, under Section 153C and the preliminary order dated October 16, 2019. The Court held that a notice issued to a deceased person is invalid and that assessment proceedings cannot continue against a dead person in the absence of specific statutory provisions. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Shabina Abraham (supra) that tax laws are made by the living to tax the living, and what survives a deceased person is their property. The Court also referred to the definition of 'assessee' in the Income Tax Act, which implies a living person. The reasoning was that the definition of 'person' under Section 2(31) of the Act does not include legal representatives of deceased persons, and the present tense used in definitions like 'assessee' indicates a living individual. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their literal wording, and equitable considerations are out of place. Therefore, since the Revenue could not bring the deceased within the letter of the law for the purpose of issuing a notice under Section 153C, the proceedings were not tenable.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequential proceedings. The Court held that the reopening was impermissible due to the third proviso to Section 147, which states that an AO may assess or reassess income other than income involving matters which are the subject matter of any appeal, reference, or revision. In this case, the issue of disallowance under Section 80IA had been decided by the CIT(A), and the remaining part of the claim was still pending before the Second Appellate Authority. The Court also noted that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts, and the succeeding AO's different opinion on the interpretation of Section 80IA did not constitute a valid reason for reopening a concluded assessment where the previous AO had applied his mind and taken a conscious decision. The Court found no omission or failure to disclose primary material facts by the assessee.
The High Court held that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. While the assessee provided its audited accounts, it did not specifically highlight the relevant items in the balance sheet, such as surplus funds represented by share capital and advances receivable, which could have demonstrated the source of the investment. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Companies (Supra), emphasizing the assessee's duty to disclose primary facts. The Court found that the omission to specifically point out the relevant balance sheet items to the respondent constituted a failure to disclose primary facts regarding the sources of investment. The Court also noted that Explanation 1 to Section 147 clarifies that the production of account books or evidence that could have been discovered with due diligence does not amount to disclosure. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to unexplained investment, and the reopening notice was justified. The writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated March 27, 2019, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for AY 2014-15, was without authority of law and was liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the issue of the VAT amount was thoroughly examined during the original scrutiny assessment, and the then Assessing Officer had consciously arrived at a conclusion not to make an addition for the entire amount of Rs. 79,78,941, but only for a differential amount of Rs. 10,41,320, which was subsequently deleted by the ITAT. The reasons recorded for reopening, stating the assessee's failure to disclose the VAT refund, were considered to be nothing but a "mere change of opinion" on the very same set of facts that were available during the original assessment. The Court emphasized that reopening cannot be based on a "mere change of opinion" or a fresh application of mind to the same facts without any "tangible material" subsequently received. Since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly, and no new tangible material was brought on record by the revenue after the scrutiny assessment, the AO had no right to reopen the assessment. The writ application was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion. The Court reasoned that when a claim or issue has already been examined at the original assessment stage, the Assessing Officer cannot resort to reopening to re-examine the same facts. The Court found that the materials on record, particularly the reasons for reopening, indicated that the case was one of reopening based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was not sustainable in law. The writ application was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. The Court did not decide on the merits of the additions themselves but focused on the validity of the reopening process.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Court noted that the original assessment under Section 143(3) had already considered the transaction with Shaileshkumar Naika, and an addition was made under Section 68. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had not applied an independent mind and had mechanically relied on the information provided by the Investigation Wing, Surat. The Court observed that the issue of the alleged bogus transaction was already part of the original assessment and was under appeal before the ITAT. Since the same amount could not be brought to tax again in reassessment proceedings, and there was no tangible material for reopening, the formation of belief by the AO was considered vague and based on irrelevant material. The Court quashed the notice dated March 28, 2019, issued under Section 148 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for AY 2011-12, justifying the reopening of the assessment. The Court found that the information received by the AO was specific and unambiguous regarding the assessee's involvement in accommodation entries. The AO had conducted independent verification, including obtaining bank statements of concerned parties and calling for information under Section 133(6), which corroborated the initial information. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (1999) 236 ITR 34, stating that the Court is only required to see if there is prima facie material for reopening, not the sufficiency or correctness of the material. The Court found a live link between the material suggesting escapement of income and the AO's conclusion. Regarding the approval under Section 151, the Court noted that the sanction order was not placed on record by the assessee, and in the absence of evidence of mechanical sanction, the contention was rejected. The objections raised by the assessee were also found to have been extensively dealt with in a reasoned speaking order. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment, and the impugned notice was not without jurisdiction or bad in law. The writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that at the stage of initiation of reassessment proceedings, the only requirement is the existence of prima facie material to reopen the assessment, and the sufficiency and correctness of such material are not to be examined. The Court noted that the original assessment was processed under Section 143(1), and therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, which requires showing failure to disclose material facts, would not apply. The AO had received information from the investigating wing, conducted inquiries, and issued a notice under Section 133(6) to the assessee, which was not complied with. The AO had a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment based on the alleged accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 10,80,397/-. The Court found that the assessee failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate its contentions regarding the alleged transactions and that the bank statement for the relevant year was crucial. Therefore, the AO had justification to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Court concluded that the assessee failed to make out a case for quashing the reassessment notice. The writ application was dismissed.
The High Court, noting that the controversy was in a narrow compass and that the Revenue acknowledged the demand was under verification and correction at the CPC, Ghaziabad, disposed of the writ application. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad, to effect the necessary correction/deletion of the outstanding demand shown online within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court did not decide on the validity of the demand itself but focused on the procedural aspect of correction. The Registry was instructed to forward a copy of the order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal could not dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adverting to the merits of the case. It relied on Rule 24 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which mandates the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent, and if the appellant later satisfies the Tribunal about sufficient cause for non-appearance, the ex-parte order can be set aside. The Tribunal's reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. was deemed erroneous and contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar. The court also noted that the miscellaneous application was filed beyond the time limit prescribed by the amended Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came into effect from June 1, 2016. However, the court found the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution to be contrary to law. Consequently, the order dated July 31, 2018, rejecting the delay condonation and the order dated December 12, 2014, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, were quashed and set aside. The original appeal (ITA No. 1263/AHD/2011 for AY 2006-07) was restored to the file of the ITAT for disposal on merits.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's stance was that the outstanding demand had been reduced to Nil, but the necessary correction/deletion of the online outstanding demand was pending at the CPC, Ghaziabad. Since the CPC, Ghaziabad was not a party respondent, the Court disposed of the writ application with a request to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad, to effect the necessary correction/deletion of the outstanding demand shown online within four weeks of receiving the order. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad. The Court did not decide on the validity of the original demand or the recovery notices on merits, but rather facilitated the administrative correction of the online record.
The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid and legal. Regarding the contention of 'change of opinion', the Court found that the information received from the ADIT (Inv.) was tangible material that came to the AO's knowledge after the completion of the original assessment and was not on record at that time. Therefore, the principle of change of opinion was not applicable. On the issue of failure to disclose, the Court observed that the facts regarding the accommodation entries were not truly disclosed by the assessee. Relying on the judgments in Jayant Security and Finance Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT and Phoolchand Bhajranglal and Anr. vs. ITO, the Court held that when disclosures are found to be prima-facie untrue, the earlier opinion would not prevent the AO from examining the issue, and if a transaction is found to be bogus based on subsequent information, the mere disclosure of that transaction does not amount to a true and full disclosure of facts. The Court was satisfied that there was enough material before the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 148, as the AO had applied his mind to the information and formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.
The High Court held that the re-opening of assessments was not justified. The Court reasoned that while the partnership deeds contained clauses for interest on partners' capital and remuneration, these were enabling provisions and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the payment of interest and remuneration was subject to the mutual agreement of the partners and did not automatically imply that such payments had to be made. The Court noted that there was no material on record to indicate that the assessee had actually received any interest on capital or remuneration. Furthermore, the Court observed that for AY 2010-11, a similar deduction under Section 80IB(10) was claimed without paying interest or remuneration, and this claim was not disturbed by the AO. The Court found the AO's conclusion that the assessee had claimed excessive deductions due to failure to provide for interest and remuneration to be contrary to law and without jurisdiction. The Court applied the principles laid down in the case of Alidhara Taxspin (P) Ltd. (supra), concluding that mere incorporation of clauses in a partnership deed does not signify mandatory payment. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the re-opening of assessments was not justified. The Court reasoned that while the partnership deeds contained clauses for interest on partners' capital and remuneration, these were enabling provisions and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the payment of interest and remuneration was subject to the mutual agreement of the partners and did not automatically imply that such payments had to be made. The Court noted that there was no material on record to indicate that the assessee had actually received any interest on capital or remuneration. Furthermore, the Court observed that for AY 2010-11, a similar deduction under Section 80IB(10) was claimed without paying interest or remuneration, and this claim was not disturbed by the AO. The Court found the AO's conclusion that the assessee had claimed excessive deductions due to failure to provide for interest and remuneration to be contrary to law and without jurisdiction. The Court applied the principles laid down in the case of Alidhara Taxspin (P) Ltd. (supra), concluding that mere incorporation of clauses in a partnership deed does not signify mandatory payment. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the re-opening of assessments was not justified. The Court reasoned that while the partnership deeds contained clauses for interest on partners' capital and remuneration, these were enabling provisions and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the payment of interest and remuneration was subject to the mutual agreement of the partners and did not automatically imply that such payments had to be made. The Court noted that there was no material on record to indicate that the assessee had actually received any interest on capital or remuneration. Furthermore, the Court observed that for AY 2010-11, a similar deduction under Section 80IB(10) was claimed without paying interest or remuneration, and this claim was not disturbed by the AO. The Court found the AO's conclusion that the assessee had claimed excessive deductions due to failure to provide for interest and remuneration to be contrary to law and without jurisdiction. The Court applied the principles laid down in the case of Alidhara Taxspin (P) Ltd. (supra), concluding that mere incorporation of clauses in a partnership deed does not signify mandatory payment. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated the proceedings not merely on the basis of information received but also on his independent satisfaction and available materials, forming a belief regarding escaped assessment. The reasons recorded indicated that entities like R.S Enterprise, P M & Co., and J.K Enterprise, which had no business activities, provided accommodation entries through bogus sales and purchases. The Court found a live link or direct nexus between the material suggesting escapement of income and the information on which the AO formed his belief. The Court cited the Apex Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri, stating that at the stage of Section 148, "reason to believe" is sufficient, not conclusive proof of escapement. Regarding the sanction under Section 151, the Court noted the absence of evidence from the assessee to prove mechanical sanction, rejecting the contention. The Court found that the objections submitted by the assessee were extensively dealt with in the disposal order. Therefore, the impugned notice under Section 148 was not without jurisdiction or bad in law. The writ application was dismissed.