Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 614 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTReopening of assessment - disallowing the genuineness of the compensation u/s 40A(3) alleged to have been paid by the assessee to certain parties for vacating the property - whether the Tribunal would be correct in upholding reassessment proceedings when the reasons recorded for reopening of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act itself does not survive? - Held that:- Considering the provision of Section 147 as well as its Explanation 3, and also keeping in view that Section 147 is for the benefit of the Revenue and not assessee and is aimed at garnering the escaped income of the assessee {viz. Sun Engineering ([1992 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] )} and also keeping in view that it is the constitutional obligation of every assessee to disclose his total income on which it is to pay tax, we are of the clear opinion that the two parts of Section 147 (one relating to 'such income' and the other to 'any other income') are to be read independently. The phrase 'such income' used in the first part of Section 147 is with regard to which reasons have been recorded. Under Section 148(2) of the Act, and the phrase 'any other income' used in the second part of the Section is with regard to where no reasons have been recorded before issuing notice and has come to the notice of the Assessing Officer subsequently during the course of the proceedings, which can be assessed independent of the first part, even when no addition can be made with regard to 'such income', but the notice on the basis of which proceedings have commenced, is found to be valid. No reason to differ with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Govindaraju - vs - Income Tax Officer [2015 (8) TMI 271 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and thus we answer the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|