Landmark Cases on Assessment Procedure

The omission of a statutory provision is legally equivalent to its repeal, as the terms 'delete' and 'omit' are used interchangeably in legislative language.

A question of an Assessing Authority's jurisdiction cannot be disputed after assessment proceedings are completed. Such disputes can only be decided by the Commissioner or the Board, not by an appellate authority under Section 246.

The High Court decision in Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India is cited for a proposition regarding assessment procedure or related matters.

An assessment under Section 153A does not mandatorily require a notice under Section 143(2).

A non-obstante clause at the beginning of a section gives it overriding effect over other provisions of the Income-tax Act.

In set-aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction is limited to issues that were before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer cannot re-examine or examine issues that were not before the Tribunal.

Where an assessee requests to furnish requisite evidence before the AO, the matter can be restored to the AO's file in the interest of substantial justice, granting one more opportunity for verification. The court found that if the assessee satisfies the conditions of sub-section (1) of Section 201, they cannot be held as an assessee in default, and no disallowance would be called for under the second proviso of Section 40(a)(ia).

Approval for reassessment under Section 151 requires the higher-ranking official to apply their mind to the facts and law, not merely provide a ritualistic or formal confirmation. A printed format approval without specific reasons does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

The High Court's power to issue writs under Article 226 is wide but discretionary, and the High Court may refuse relief if an alternative remedy is available.

An appeal is not maintainable if the Assessing Officer accepts the assessee's claim after due verification of documents, especially when the decision is based on an agreement or the assessee has not provided an explanation for the nature and source of credits.

Res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, meaning a prior decision does not automatically bind future assessments.

The case is cited for the proposition that Section 247 of the Act lays down the right and power of APL, as confirmed by a Division Bench judgment dated 23.08.2012.

A return filed under section 153A is to be considered as a return under section 139(1). The obligation to file a return under section 153A remains suspended until the notice under clause (a) of such sub-section is issued.

When an assessment is abated under section 153A, an assessee is entitled to claim deductions or exemptions in the return filed in response to the notice. The ITAT Special Bench has held that a deduction under section 80-IA is permissible in such a scenario.

Reassessment proceedings can be quashed if the reasons recorded do not mention the first proviso to section 147, particularly concerning full and true disclosure of material facts.

The Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 14A is not vitiated by the mere absence of an express recital of dissatisfaction if a detailed analysis and statutory procedure were followed in computing the disallowance.

The definition of 'eligible assessee' under section 144C(15)(b) delineates two distinct categories of persons, rather than imposing two conditions.

A taxpayer can raise additional claims before appellate authorities, even if not raised during assessment or in a revised return. The Assessing Officer must examine eligibility criteria for claims based on facts available in audited accounts.

An assessment order passed without a DIN, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, cannot be sustained. However, if the DIN was generated and communicated separately, the assessment order may be valid despite the absence of DIN in its body, especially if the issue is stayed by the Supreme Court.

The maximum marginal rate (MMR) of income tax is applied, and surcharge is levied separately if applicable. Surcharge is not leviable if the quantum of income is below a certain threshold.

The Revenue cannot apply different standards to different assessees when accepting the correctness of a judicial decision, without just cause.

The ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in Smt. Smita P. Patil & Ors. v. ACIT is cited as authority, with its citation being 113 TTJ 818. The provided passages indicate that this case was referenced in multiple later judgments, suggesting its relevance in tax litigation, though the specific legal principle is not explicitly stated in the provided text.

An order for special audit under Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act must be passed within the prescribed time, including any extensions. An assessment order based on a special audit report submitted beyond the permissible period is void.

Revenue officials have a duty to guide assessees in making claims permissible under the law, as indicated by a Board circular. The assessment officer's duty at the original assessment stage includes considering grounds for relief under specific Finance Act provisions.

An assessment made without a valid notice under section 143(2) is invalid. The issuance of a notice by a non-jurisdictional officer is equivalent to non-issuance of a valid notice.

A notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act to an entity that has already been amalgamated is invalid.

Tribunal decisions for a particular assessment year must be followed based on the principle of consistency, even if the assessee is litigating the same issue before the High Court.

The ITAT Jodhpur Bench's decision in Vishal Dembla v. DCIT is cited as supporting authority in multiple later judgments, indicating it likely deals with principles of assessment procedure, evidence, or natural justice relevant to tax proceedings.

The amendment to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, specifically the insertion of an Explanation by the Finance Act, 2022, applies prospectively and not retrospectively.

A protective assessment must be expressly stated as such by the Income Tax Department. It is made out of abundant caution when there is doubt as to who has received the income.

An assessee can raise the question of the validity of a block assessment in an appeal against a penalty order if the block assessment itself was without jurisdiction.

Income accrues when it is earned, not necessarily when it is received or paid. This applies to options where the income is based on the time elapsed or the option being exercised.

The multiplier method is a sound and legally established principle for computing compensation in motor accident claim cases, including future losses. Calculations for such losses necessarily involve hypotheses and imponderables, requiring courts to assess the overall picture.

In a taxing statute, the interpretation must be based strictly on the plain language of the provision and not on any presumed intention of the legislature or the exempting authority. If a taxpayer falls within the clear terms of an exemption, the benefit cannot be denied by invoking a supposed intention.

In a best judgment assessment, there is an inherent degree of guesswork involved, and the assessee is responsible for this if they fail to submit proper accounts. The High Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the assessing authority.

An assessment order passed against a deceased assessee without bringing their legal representative on record is a nullity, and the appellate authority should direct the Assessing Officer to comply with Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before passing a fresh order.

Section 148 is a substantive provision, while Section 158BC (and by analogy, Section 153C) is a procedural one. Section 153C's non-obstante clause grants broad powers to reopen assessments without the 'reason to believe' safeguard of Section 147.

An award can be set aside for patent illegality if it is contrary to substantive provisions of Indian law, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or the terms of the contract. Such illegality must go to the root of the matter and cannot be trivial.

The date of dispatch of a notice under section 148 is the relevant date for determining if it has been validly issued, not the date of service. However, both issuance and service are mandatory jurisdictional requirements for reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148.

The Supreme Court has held that the interpretation of a CBDT circular by the tax authorities, being an executive construction, must be bounded and cannot override statutory provisions or prior court judgments, unless it violates the law.

An Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the specific directions given by an appellate authority when making a fresh assessment after a matter has been set aside. A de novo assessment must strictly adhere to the scope of the remand directions.

An assessment order directing the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is deemed to constitute the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1B). This applies even after amendments to the law.

When interpreting a statute, a non-obstante clause overrides other provisions only when there is a clear inconsistency between the non-obstante clause and the main enacting part.

The Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Modipon Ltd. (400 ITR 1) is authority for the treatment of PLA balance on excise duty and R&D cess, holding that such issues, when decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court and not appealed by the department to the Supreme Court, attain finality.

The Settlement Commission can use material produced by the assessee or evidence recorded during its proceedings against the assessee, provided there is incriminating material. If no such evidence is found for a disclosed amount, an addition cannot be made based on that disclosure.

Trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions are not considered 'advances' under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A concluded assessment is not erroneous merely because more material could have been gathered to disprove the assessee's claim, provided the Assessing Officer acted judiciously and conducted enquiries.