Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2009 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 943 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Nature of expenses incurred - revenue or capital - HELD THAT:- The scope of the proceedings u/s 147/148 are now well established by a catena of judicial precedents. By virtue of proceedings u/s 147/148 completed assessments cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion i.e., on the basis of the same set of facts and material which were in the knowledge of AO, the AO cannot issue notices u/s 148 merely because it felt that a decision which has been taken earlier is not correct and needs to be corrected. The proceedings for reopening of assessment on the ground of income escaping assessment is an exception to the finality of the proceedings arrived at u/s 143(3) during the regular assessment proceedings of the assessment years. The facts clearly show that since this very issue of the expenditure being treated as revenue or capital with respect to the expenditure incurred in the lease hold premises was dwelt upon by the AO. The impugned notices are, therefore, clearly misconceived and bound to be quashed. A reference to the reasons for reopening of the assessments, the italics portions, shows that there is no new material for reopening of the assessments and the officer issuing the notices in fact relies upon the record and the correspondence on the very subject in the regular assessment proceedings. Clearly therefore, the notices are an abuse of the process of law because in the facts, such as those found in the present cases, if harassment to a citizen is allowed, then, the conclusiveness of the regular assessment proceedings will have no meaning because the very issue which was considered and mind applied, would lose its finality. Therefore, the present writ petitions are allowed quashing the impugned notices issued u/s 148 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom. In view of the facts of the present cases, costs of ₹ 25 ,000 are awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
|