Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2011 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 378 - HC - Income TaxReassessment - deduction u/s 80 IB - date of commercial production - the notice u/s 148 as well as notice u/s 154 - assessment year 2003-04 - held that:- A reading of the notice under Section 154 of the Act and the reassessment notice dated 11th May 2009 shows that there is absolutely no material difference on the issues sought to be considered under these notices, except the fact that while in the proceedings under Section 154, the notice is based on the view that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting a rectification, the proceedings under Section 147 alleged that by reason of the untrue and incorrect particulars given by the assessee, there had been an escapement of tax. Given the fact that the area of operation of both these provisions are on totally different fields, the simultaneous assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 154 and 147 on the self same issue, plainly shows the contradiction in the reasoning of the second respondent and as without logic or reason. There cannot be two parallel proceedings on the self same issue as one based on the view that there were materials available on record which warranted exercise of jurisdiction under Section 154 and the other initiated under Section 147 that there was escapement of income from tax on account of the failure of the assessee from disclosing the full and correct particulars - Notice u/s 148 quashed. Regarding AY 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 - notice u/s 148 - held that:- the notices do not even touch on the primary materials disclosing the causal link to believe that there was escapement of income from assessment on account of the failure of the assessee from disclosing the true and full facts. Thus apart from the above, going by the period of limitation provided for under Section 147 proviso, in the absence of any materials to support the assumption of jurisdiction within the four year limitation period prescribed therein, the proceedings initiated after the expiry of four years from the assessment year, suffer from lack of jurisdiction on the part of the first respondent in proceeding further in this matter. Ground of alternative remedy of appeal - held that:- the existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal, would not stand in the way of this Court granting the relief under Article 226, particularly on the admitted fact as regards the date of commercial production taken up for consideration for the purpose of granting 100% relief.
|