Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (7) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ken into consideration. 3. The learned departmental representative argued that in accordance with the provisions of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, no notice issued under the provisions of the I.T. Act shell be invalid merely by reason of any omission or defect or mistake in such notice. Therefore, according to him, the learned CIT (Appeals) should have considered the merits of the case and should not have decided the matter only on the legality of section 148 of the I.T. Act. 4. The only issue involved in this case is regarding the validity of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 for reopening the assessments for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86. The notices required the assessee to file return .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed that the view held by the learned CIT(Appeals) on this point is not correct and, therefore, his order should be set aside and the matter be remanded to him to pass a fresh order according to law. The issue of validity of the notices in this case under section 148 was raised before the CIT(Appeals) by an additional ground. The CIT(Appeals) admitted the additional ground and decided the validity of the notices as a preliminary ground. In this case, the original assessments were completed under section 143(3). Subsequently, there was a search in the premises of the assessee on 22-11-1988, during the course of which certain documents and materials were seized. As a consequence the Assessing Officer found that income chargeable to tax had esc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such period, not being less than 30 days, as may be specified in the notice, a return of income....". However, the assessee was called upon to file the returns within 30 days from the date of service of the notices. It may be mentioned that a decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 15-2-1993 in Writ Petition No. 33832 of 1992 in the case of Winter Core Private Ltd., Bangalore-25 was relied on by the assessee before the learned CIT(Appeals) who accepted the contention of the assessee that the notices are invalid and the consequent actions were illegal. According to him, the notices should have been issued in accordance with the amended provisions of section 148, by affording time to the assessee to file the returns of income after the ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncome is more than 30 days or after the expiry of 30 days. The reassessments have been made on 31-3-1992 in accordance with the notices issued under section 148. 8. Apart from interpreting the provisions of section 292B to show that the issuance of the notices under section 148 in this case is procedural in nature, the learned departmental representative contended that the defect or mistake in the procedure of issuing notices is curable under the said section. In this connection, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 85 Taxman 407. The Supreme Court on the question whether it could be said that non-service of notice under section 143(2) against nine out of the ten legal represent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of assessee were illegal. However, the Supreme Court decision was not available before the Bangalore Bench at that time. In support of his contention, he has also further relied on the following decisions :---- 1. CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC), 2. Jayanthi Talkies Distributors v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 576 (Mad.), 3. P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 80/[1987] 35 Taxman 131 (Ker.), and 4. Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, H.EH. The Nizam of Hyderabad v. ITO [1970] 75 ITR 133 (AP). 10. We have examined the facts and considered the arguments as well as the case law cited by both parties. In our opinion, the latest decision of the Supreme Court dated 13-3-1996 in the case of Jai Prakash Singh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates