Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 679 - AT - Income TaxReopning of assessment - whether the Ld.CIT(A) can issue a direction to assess to tax the amount in the hands of A. Ramakrishna, HUF? - Held that:- The direction of CIT-A is not valid. There are certain time limits prescribed for issuance of a notice u/s. 148, which is governed by the provisions of Section 149. The assessment year involved being 2005-06, the reopening cannot be done, if six years have lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessment can be reopened for AY. 2005-06 on or before 31-03-2012. This direction given by the CIT(A) was dated 23-12-2015. By that time the direction was given, the time limits for initiation of proceedings have already lapsed. Not only that, as per Explanation 3 to Section 153 (prior to its amendment w.e.f. 01-06-2016), the CIT(A) could not have issued any such direction without giving an opportunity of being heard to such other person before the said order was passed. In this case, Shri A. Ramakrishna-individual is entirely different from A. Ramakrishna-HUF. Income Tax Act treats them as separate ‘person’. Even though HUF is represented by Shri A. Ramakrishna, still as per law, Shri A. Ramakrishna-HUF is ‘such other person’ within the meaning of the expression provided in Explanation 3. As seen from the record, the CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to such other person before a direction was given. Therefore, the direction given violates not only the provisions of law but also the principles of natural justice. The direction cannot be upheld on these reasons.
|