9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee is a liquor contractor. Original returns filed on 30th Oct., 1995, wherein income of Rs. 24,87,820 was declared by the assessee, were processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), on 10th Sept., 1996. Later on, after a lapse of considerable time a notice under s. 148, dt. 14th May, 1997, was issued. 3. The reasons for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act are extracted below: "Reasons for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Return of income for this year was filed on 30th Oct., 1995, declaring total income at Rs. 24,87,822 claiming a refund of Rs. 11,44,486. Return of income was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear has escaped assessment. There was no escapement of income in this case. The AO had omitted to follow the criteria laid down by the CBDT circular to take up the case for scrutiny. He further observed that an omission of the AO cannot be regularised by resorting to the provisions of s. 147 of the IT Act. Consequently, the learned CIT(A) held the notice under s. 148 of the Act ab initio void. 5. The Department has challenged this finding of the learned CIT(A) whereby he annulled the impugned AO (sic-assessment) and thus refrained from deciding issues on merit. 6. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri D.R. Zala, has vehemently relied on the assessment order and has further submitted that the AO has wider power of reassessment unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund was less than Rs. 1,00,000. The AO wanted to scrutinise this case, so first resort to s. 154 of the Act was undertaken, whereby refund was Increased to bring it within the purview of Board's Circular No. 1917, dt. 3rd June, 1994. The reasons recorded speak about carrying out the scrutiny of the returns and not pointing out towards any specific escapement of income for assessment. 10. Having stated the facts as above, we would like to explain the scope of s. 147/148 of the IT Act. There should be clear reference of escapement of income for the issue of notice under s. 148. Where the notice is not based on valid reasons, it cannot be a ground for assuming jurisdiction under this provision. The amended provisions of s. 147/148 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, it assumes ominous overtures and reveals the initial intention of AO that somehow or the other, he wanted to scrutinise this case.
Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that there are no valid reasons for reopening whereby it could be stated that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings are not a tool in the hands of the AO to correct the oversight or mistakes or inadvertence while making the original assessment. The AO did not have acquired valid jurisdiction under s. 148/147. Thus, we uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A). There is no need to decide the case on merits in. case he has held the very basis as void ab initio.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
