2024 (9) TMI 1138 - SCH - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment - determination of income chargeable to tax - distinction between consideration of sale and income chargeable to tax - whether income shown in the impugned order and notice to have escaped assessment is income chargeable to tax or not? As decided by HC 2023 (8) TMI 1027 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT there is nothing in Section 148 148A or Section 149 which may prevent assessee from taking advantage of said provisions merely because of his failure to file return. Neither the notice under Section 148A(b) nor order u/s 148 A(d) nor the consequential notice under section 148A give any indication that amount alleged to be income escaping assessment includes land/buildings/shares/equities/ loans/ advances etc. as contended by the Revenue. When petitioner/assessee filed a reply to the notice u/s 148(A)(b) it was clearly revealed that the said amount is the gross receipt of sale consideration of 16 scooters. Meaning thereby that the said amount was the total sale consideration receipt of the transaction in question and not income chargeable to tax which would obviously be less than the said amount.Revenue has failed to understand the fundamental difference between sale consideration on one hand and income chargeable to tax on the other. The Revenue despite being assisted by thousands of experts in the field of finance and taxation has committed such elementary mistake leading to harassment to the assessee who has been compelled to file the present avoidable piece of litigation HELD THAT - We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders and hence the special leave petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions without interference with the impugned orders. Delay was condoned, and pending applications were disposed of. The judges were Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. Petitioner represented by Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar and others.