Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1100 - DELHI HIGH COURTReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessment not been passed within the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Anchi Devi [2008 (3) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA] is related to a situation where the assessment order had not been passed within the period of limitation under Section 143 (2) of the Act and that order attained finality with the dismissal of Revenue’s Appeal by the ITAT. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment. It was in this background that the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the proceedings could not be reopened since the original assessment had not been completed within the period of limitation and was time barred. In the present case, the notice under Section 148 had been issued to make assessment and not to reopen the assessment. There is no question of reopening of the assessment since the same had been quashed by the Tribunal on a purely technical ground. Metro Auto Corporation [2006 (7) TMI 139 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was a case where the notice under Section 143 (2) was not issued before the expiry of the period of limitation. In that situation, the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act was held to be bad in law. In the present case, the assessment has been sought to be made under Section 148 within the period of limitation. The earlier assessment order was held to be non est, since the same was not issued in the name of merged entity. Revenue cannot be expected to be complacent and not act with diligence only because their appeal [2019 (9) TMI 1322 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is pending consideration before this Court against the order of the ITAT whereby the assessment order has been quashed on a technical ground. Revenue is expected to ensure that they initiate a proceeding, so that, in the eventuality of the aforesaid appeal of the Revenue being dismissed by this Court, they are not faced with a situation that initiation of fresh action under Section 148 is barred by limitation. We are inclined to consider the plea of Mr. Vohra that in view of the pendency of aforesaid appeal, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act should not result in passing of any enforcement of the fresh assessment order since there cannot be parallel proceedings undertaken with respect to the same assessment year. In order to consider the plea, we issue notice.
|