9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether the respondents acted illegally in reopening the assessment of the petitioner-assessee for the assessment year 1998-99?
Summary: The petitioner, a limited company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 claiming deductions including an amount on account of 'excise duty paid in advance allowable u/s 43B'. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice u/s 148 to the petitioner for filing the return within 31 days. The petitioner responded and filed explanations, contesting that no income had escaped assessment. The petitioner alleged that the reasons for reopening the assessment were erroneous and contrary to relevant provisions. The respondents contended that the income had escaped assessment due to the petitioner wrongly claiming deduction u/s 43B. The petitioner filed a replication stating the lack of belief for initiating proceedings u/s 147/148. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the authority did not correctly understand the accounting procedure and no income had escaped assessment, citing relevant case laws. The respondents' counsel countered, relying on a Supreme Court decision. The court acknowledged its power to intervene when an authority acts without jurisdiction but noted reluctance when actions are within legal bounds. Upon examination, the court found that the Assessing Officer had prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment based on the excise duty claimed as a deduction. The court emphasized that at this stage, it was not deciding on the allowance of the deduction or tax liability but only assessing if there was a basis for the officer's belief. Concluding that the legal requirements were met and the matter was pending, the court upheld the validity of the notice to the petitioner. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim had not been rejected, and the objections would be duly considered. No other points were raised, and no grounds for interference were found. The petitioner was not awarded costs in the dismissal of the petition.
|
