“Section 149(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 149(2) is 1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. (53 ITR 231), cited in 158 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 149(2)
Income-tax assessment proceedings are administrative in nature, not civil disputes or judicial proceedings between contesting parties. Income-tax authorities act as administrative bodies to estimate income and assess tax, and the proper service of notice within the limitation period is foundational for reassessment jurisdiction.
Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.
A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.
Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that the term 'process' in relation to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is not defined and must be considered within the contemplation of the term, potentially impacting its application under DTAAs. This decision distinguished itself from the facts of other cases, including those involving broadcasting and advertising airtime.
The Gujarat High Court holds that the explanation to Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, regarding works contracts for infrastructure facilities, is clarificatory and explanatory in nature, not an amendment with retrospective effect. Its vires are upheld as it does not levy tax retrospectively.
While issuance of a Section 148 notice is a jurisdictional requirement for reassessment, its service is a condition precedent for making the assessment order, not merely for assuming jurisdiction. Valid service can occur anytime before the assessment's completion, and participation does not waive the mandatory requirement of proper notice service.
An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.
