TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which he is bound under the provisions of the Act to furnish even though that fact may otherwise be relevant for the purpose of his assessment. For the simple reason that such information has not been furnished in the return it would not mean that the assessee had failed or omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts which are necessary for the purpose of his assessment. There is no escapement of income chargeable to tax. The conditions precedent for resorting to reassessment under Section 147 of the Act are not satisfied in the present case. Just because the partnership firm failed to file its return of income for the relevant year, by itself, will not confer jurisdiction upon the authority concerned to issue notice against the individual partners of the firm with respect to their individual return of income for the relevant year in consideration. Reassessment permissible under sub-section (1) of section 150 - The entire object of Section 150 (2) is to bar the proceedings under Sub-Section (1) in the matter of assessment/re-assessment or re-computation, which has become the subject matter of the reference or revision by reason of any other provisions limiting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the writ applicant is one of the partners in a partnership firm running in the name and style of M/s. Shree Khodiyar Developers . The said partnership firm purchased two immovable properties (Block Nos.533 and 534 respectively, situated at Moje Palaswada, Dabhoi, District: Baroda) vide the sale deeds dated 30th May, 2011 for the total sale consideration of ₹ 30,01,548/- and ₹ 53,25,452/- respectively. The writ applicant herein is a signatory to the said conveyance deed in his capacity as a partner of the firm. 4. It is not in dispute that the sale consideration for the purchase of the two immovable properties, referred to above, was paid from the account of the partnership firm. 5. It appears that the partnership firm had not filed its return of income for the A.Y.2012-13. 6. The Income Tax Department thought fit to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 to the writ applicant in his individual capacity proposing to reopen the assessment for the A.Y.2012-13 on the ground that the income chargeable to tax for the relevant year had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, 1961. The following reasons came to be assigned for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment at stipulated u/s.2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This case is within four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue the notice u/s. 148 has been obtained separately from joint commissioner of income tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Or In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s. 148 has been obtained separately from Principle Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act. 7. The writ applicant responded to the above referred notice by filing his objections as under:- A. I have received letter dated 19.06.2019 stating reasons for reopening of the assessment for A.Y.2012-13 as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er No.BRD/ITO/Wd. 1(2)(4) inf./2018-19 dated 18.02.2019 that assessee along with five others, has purchased two immovable property situated at Block No.533 and 534 Moje Palaswada, Dabhoi, Dist: Baroda for a consideration of ₹ 30,01,548/- and ₹ 53,25,452/- respectively . In this respect, I would like to inform you that I have not purchased the immovable property bearing Block No.534/1 moje Palaswada for total purchase consideration of ₹ 53,25,452/- and Block No.533 Moje Palaswada for total purchase consideration of ₹ 30,01,548/- vide registered sale deed no.1169 of 2011 and 1170 of 2011 respectively dated 30.05.2011 but the immovable property have been purchased by the M/s.Shree Khodiyar Developers. The purchase consideration was paid by the firm M/s. Shree Khodiyar Developers. Copy of the sale deeds and bank statements of M/s. Shree Khodiyar Developers are hereby enclosed for your verification. It seems that the wrong information is collected/gathered. The property subject matter of the reopening was not purchased by me at all. The reason for reopening of the assessment itself is on wrong premise and fact and it is completely base on wrong reason, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. c. I have filed my return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 19.03.2013 vide E-filing Acknowledgment Number 580507250190313 disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. I have also suo motu informed the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mehsana that the immovable property of the subject matter was not purchased by me but it is purchased by the M/s. Shree Khodiyar Developers vide letter dated 19.03.2019. Copy of the acknowledged letter is enclosed herewith. It seems that no cognizance has been taken of the letter submitted by me. When return has been filed disclosing fully and truly all material facts and letter explaining the things has already submitted. I am totally surprised to receive notice u/s.148 on the basis of purchase of immovable property. The reopening of an assessment after the lapse of many year is a serious matter. I can't see any genuine reason to reopen the assessment after so long duration has been lapsed that too on the basis of untrue reason. The reopening of the assessment is without the authority permitted u/s.147 of the Act. d. I have filed his return of income for the A.Y.2012- 13 dated 19.03.2013 vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income for the year under consideration, so the investment remain unexplained. In this case the reopening is as per the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 is applicable. 2.2 Para (B)(b) the assessee has raised issued of to inquire the matter independently of information received and to satisfy himself. In this it is to state that the information was already made available to the office and in return no any capital gain was disclosed for the A.Y.2012-13. 2.3 In relation to para B(c) it is to state that as per the I.T. Act, 1961 the cases can be reopened for not more six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, it is stated that the case is reopened as per the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 and it is within the time allowed. 2.4 In relation to Para B(d) of the letter dated 03.07.2019, it is to state that in this case the law is enforceable as per the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, in this matter it is to state that material is available on which the addition is made and in this there is no any change of opinion as no any assessment was made previously for the A.Y.2012-13. 3. Disposal of objection: I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder consideration. It is submitted that the notice under Section 148 is not sustainable in law as the properties in question were purchased by the partnership firm wherein the writ applicant is one of the partners. The writ applicant, in his individual capacity, is not the purchaser of the two immovable properties. 11. It is argued that the condition precedent for resorting to reopening is that there must be escapement of income chargeable to tax . In the absence of escapement of any income chargeable to tax, it is not open for the Department to reopen the case of the assessee. 12. The learned senior counsel would submit that the Department has failed to appreciate the following:- The writ applicant has not purchased the properties in question. Rather, such properties were purchased by the partnership firm namely M/s. Khodiyar Developers , wherein the writ applicant is a partner. This fact was conveyed to the respondent immediately upon receipt of the reasons for reopening. Even payment has been made by the said firm through the banking channel. The writ applicant was a signatory to the said conveyance deeds in the capacity of partner of the said firm. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit-in-reply upon which due reliance has been placed on behalf of the Revenue. 4. The facts are that in this case an information was received from the ITO, Ward (1)(2)(4), Vadodara vide letter dated 18.2.2019; in relation to the properties purchased by the six co-owners i.e. Shri Nisharahmed Vajir Pathan, Shri Manish R. Gaur, Shri Manoj H. Patel, Shri Manish Mulchand Patel, Shri Hashitkumar D. Bhatt and Shri Ganpat Amrutlal Patel at Block Nos.533, 534 mouje Palaswada, Dabhoi, Dist: Vadodara of ₹ 39,01,548/- and ₹ 53,25,452/- respectively. The assessee had also paid stamp duty and registration charges of ₹ 4,86,060/-. 5. It is submitted that the case of one of the partner Shri Manish Rameshbhai Gaur was selected under the CASS for A.Y.2012-13 and addition of ₹ 14,68,843/- was made for unexplained investment of the said properties, During assessment proceedings of Shri Manish Gaur, it was contended by him before the AO that the properties belong to a firm however Shri Manishbhai Gaur failed to prove that properties were purchased by firm viz. M/s. Shri Khodiyar Developers bearing PAN No.ABWFS2637J. 6. It is submitted that as observed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partner is without any basis. As the firm has not filed its return of income, there is no evidence to show that the property was purchased by firm. Moreover, the order of CIT(A) in the case of co-owner is the tangible material in the hands of AO to form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 11. The contention of the petitioner that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is not correct. As stated in the earlier para, assessment framed in case of one of the co-owners which has been upheld by the order of CIT(A) supported by the fact that no return has been filed by the partnership firm, is the tangible material to form belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 12. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that reopening is based on the borrower satisfaction is not correct. As stated earlier, it is reiterated that AO based on the information received verified the details. Even in the order of the CIT(A) it has been directed to verify the details in the case of co owners. There is no evidence to support that the purchase was made by the partnership firm. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition made by the AO. In other three partners reassessment proceedings were not initiated. Details of assessment proceedings in relation to all five partners of M/s.Khodiyar Developers is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R.1. 3. It is submitted that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. No scrutiny was done at the original assessment stage. Moreover in absence of return filed by the firm, verification was not done at the original assessment stage. Therefore, if the Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued to the firm and not to the partners then it is submission of the respondent that in view of Section 150 o the Act, findings/directions may be issued so that appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Act can be initiated against the firm. 4. In view of the above, there is no illegality in initiation of the proceedings u/s.148 of the Act. 20. Ms. Bhatt vehemently submitted that the Department could be said to be justified in reopening the assessment of the writ applicant for the relevant year as the partnership firm had failed to file its return of income. The Department wants to und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to see whether there is prima facie material, on the basis of which, the department would be justified in reopening the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at that stage. (iii) The validity of the reopening of the assessment shall have to be determined with reference to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. (iv) The basic requirement of law for reopening and assessment is application of mind by the Assessing Officer, to the materials produced prior to the reopening of the assessment, to conclude that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied-a postmortem exercise of analysing the materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not make an inherently defective reassessment order valid. (v) The crucial link between the information made available to the Assessing Officer and the formation of the belief should be present. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. (vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial does not mean the material alien to the original record. (xiii) The order, disposing of objections or any counter affidavit filed during the writ proceedings before the Court cannot be substituted for the reasons to believe. (xiv) The decision to reopen the assessment on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing cannot always be condemned or dubbed as a fishing or roving inquiry. The expression reason to believe appearing in Section 147 suggests that if the Income Tax Officer acts as a reasonable and prudent man on the basis of the information secured by him that there is a case for reopening, then Section 147 can well be pressed into service and the assessments be reopened. As a consequence of such reopening, certain other facts may come to light. There is no ban or any legal embargo under Section 147 for the Assessing Officer to take into consideration such facts which come to light either by discovery or by a fuller probe into the matter and reassess the assessee in detail if circumstances require. (xv) The test of jurisdiction under Section 143 of the Act is not the ultimate result of the inquiry but the test is whether the income tax officer ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation as contemplated in clause (b) of Section 147. (xx) The reasons recorded or the material available on record must have nexus to the subjective opinion formed by the A.O. regarding the escapement of the income but then, while recording the reasons for the belief formed, the A.O. is not required to finally ascertain the factum of escapement of the tax and it is sufficient that the A.O had cause or justification to know or suppose that the income had escaped assessment [vide Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra)]. It is also well settled that the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons which have led to the formation of a belief by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped the assessment cannot be examined by the court. 25. The powers under section 147 of the Act are special powers and peculiar in nature where a quasi-judicial order previously passed after full hearing and which has otherwise become final is subject to reopening on certain grounds. Ordinarily, a judicial or quasi-judicial order is subject to appeal, revision or even review if statute so permits but not liable to be re-opened by the same authority. Such powers are vested by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of income. 27. It is also the case of the Revenue that the partnership firm had failed to file its return for the relevant assessment year. Of course, in this regard, the Department thought fit not to initiate any proceedings against the partnership firm including any criminal prosecution. 28. A lot was argued on behalf of the Revenue as regards the rights and liabilities of a partnership firm and also as regards the legal status of a partnership firm. We may give a fair idea in this regard by referring to few judgments. 29. In Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa , 1966 AIR 1300, the Supreme Court, while considering a question of similar nature, held as under (page 1303) : From a perusal of these provisions it would be abundantly clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the partnership is formed or which may be acquired in the course of the business of the partnership, it becomes the property of the firm and what a partner is entitled to is his share of profits, if any, accruing to the partnership from the realisation of this property, and upon dissolution of the partnership to a share in the money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decisions on this aspect, culled out the legal principles in the following manner (page 90) : (1) a firm has no legal existence and as such it cannot hold any property ; (2) it is the partners, who own the partnership property as such; (3) partners alone should have the benefit of the exemption under Section 5(1)(iv), when their individual assessments are taken up to the extent of their respective shares in the net wealth of the partnership firm ; (4) the mere fact that a partner cannot claim to be entitled to any portion of the property owned by a firm as exclusively belonging to him will not completely disentitle him from seeking the benefit of exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act, so long as he is the owner of the house property even though as a partner in a firm ; (5) For the purpose of the exemption under Section 5(1) (iv), it is not necessary that the partner should be able to say that the property or any specific part thereof exclusively belongs to him. 32. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ratansi Narayan Patel v. CIT, [1988] 173 ITR 547, while considering the provisions of Sections 2(29), 2(42A) and 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e definition of the term 'person' under the Income-tax Act. The firm is a separate entity for the purpose of assessment and, therefore, a firm will be entitled to the exemption under Section 85. Whatever that be, we are not concerned with that now, and we do not wish to express any opinion on that matter. As far as the individuals who make up the partners of the firm are concerned, we have no doubt that the properties, which are called the assets of the firm, really vest in the partners of the firm. This has also been said by the Supreme Court in the decision in Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnnappa, . 34 . In K.I. Viswambharan and Brothers v. CIT, [1973] 91 ITR 588, a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, while considering the provisions of Sections 45, 54(i) and 114 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 2 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967, and Section. 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, held (head-note) : That for purposes of assessment to tax, the Income-tax Act treats a registered firm as an entity distinct from the partners. Under the specific provisions of the Partnership Act relating to the property of a firm and the judicial pronouncements on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosure that the assessee is obliged to do so by the statute will necessarily depend upon the nature of information or disclosure that the assessee is obliged to do so by the statute. In the instant case, originally, the assessee filed his return in Form ITR-4 wherein the disclosure of investment is not requires to be disclosed as writ applicant had disclosed his income on presumptive basis under Section 44AD of the Act and his assessment was completed accordingly for the relevant assessment year. We are of the view that the writ applicant was was not obliged to furnish any information as regards the partnership firm or the investment if any in the partnership firm. This issue, according to us, is not, at all, germane for the purpose of Section 148 of the Act. 37. After the receipt of the return of income either under Section 139(1) or under Section 139(2) the ITO has power under Section 143(1) to make the assessment without requiring the presence of the assessee or production by him of any evidence. This means the ITO believes the assessee and accepts the returned income without any inquiry about the correctness or completeness of the return of income filed. If the ITO is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of his failing to disclose any other particulars of his income at that stage could arise. Then the next stage in the process of making an assessment upon a person was where a return is filed by him in the prescribed form but the ITO felt that the information conveyed by such person in the prescribed return form was inadequate and required further inquiry and verification for the purpose of making assessment, the ITO then acts by issuing notices, requiring the assessee to produce such evidence, material, particulars or information either upon his direction under Section 142(1) or under Section 143(2) directing the assessee to produce such evidence as he (assessee) may rely in support of the return filed. It is at this third and crucial stage when the assessee is required by the ITO to elucidate on some particular points that the assessee has been obliged to disclose truly and fully all necessary facts in respect of those points to enable the assessing officer to make a valid and proper assessment. Therefore, unless this third stage was reached there can be no obligation on an assessee to disclose and produce any evidence in respect of points other than those in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clearly make out that while filing a return an assessee is not bound or obliged to disclose any information in relation to any fact other than what is required to be supplied and furnished by him in the various columns of the prescribed form of return of income or which he is bound under the provisions of the Act to furnish even though that fact may otherwise be relevant for the purpose of his assessment. For the simple reason that such information has not been furnished in the return it would not mean that the assessee had failed or omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts which are necessary for the purpose of his assessment. 41. In the aforesaid context, we may also refer to a decision of this High Court in the case of Bhavik Bharatbhai Padia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), rendered in the Special Civil Application No.17021 of 2018, decided on 19.08.2019. One of us J.B. Pardiwala, J., speaking for the Bench, observed as under; 16. It is not in dispute that the form of return of income i.e. ITR2, then in force had no separate column for the disclosure of any investment. The question is whether the assessee was under any legal obligation to disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obviously depends upon as to what is his income which the assessee is liable to disclose for the purpose of assessment, for, concealment can only be of that which one is bound to disclose and yet fails to do so. Section 139 provides for filing of a return of income by an assessee and Subsection (1) of this section lays down that every person whose total income during the previous year exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax, shall furnish a return of his income in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed. The return of income is required to be filed in order to enable the Revenue authorities to make a proper assessment of tax on the assessee. It must, therefore, follow a fortiori that the assessee must disclose in the return every item of income which is liable to be taxed in his hands as part of his total income. The charge of income tax is levied by Section 4 on the total income of the assessee, and total income is defined in Section 2, Subsection (45), to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5 computed in the manner laid down in the Act. It is no doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be shown in the return of income filed by him. The assessee then contended that the return of income which was required to be filed by her under Section 139, Subsection (1), was a return in the prescribed form and the form of the return prescribed by Rule 12 of the Incometax Rules, 1962, did not contain any column for showing the income of the spouse and minor child which was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under Section 64, Subsection (1), Clauses (I) and (iii), and there was, therefore, no obligation on the assessee to disclose this income in the returns filed by her. This contention is also, in our opinion, fallacious and deserves to be rejected. It is true that the form of return prescribed by Rule 12, which was in force during the relevant assessment year did not contain any separate column for showing the income of the spouse and minor child liable to be included in the total income of the assessee, but did contain a note stating that if the income of any other person is includible in the total income of the assessee under the provisions, inter alia, of Section 64, such income should also be shown in the return under the appropriate head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... close fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922. With the greatest respect to the learned judges who decided this case, we do not think, for reasons already discussed, that this decision lays down the correct law on the subject, and had it not been for the fact that since July 1, 1972, the form of the return prescribed by Rule 12 has been amended and since then, there is a separate column providing that income arising to spouse/minor child or any other person as referred to in Chapter V of the Act should be shown separately under that column and consequently there is no longer any scope for arguing that the assessee is not bound to disclose such income in the return to be furnished by him, we would have referred the present case to a larger Bench. But we do not propose to do so since the question has now become academic in view of the amendment in the form of the return carried out with effect from July 1, 1972. We would, therefore, follow this decision in Muthiah Chettiar s case , which being a decision of a Bench of three judges of this court, is binding upon us, and following that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act. On revenue s appeal, the tribunal affirmed the order of the Appellant Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court framed the following two substantial questions of law for consideration: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was under no obligation to disclose in her return of income, the income of her minor daughter? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 64(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the Income tax Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment of the assessee under Section 147(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in respect of her omission or failure to disclose the income of her minor daughter in her own assessment ? 21.The first question came to be answered in the affirmative and the second question in the negative and both in favour of the assessee. The observations made by the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court are as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has been prescribed by the said Amendment of 1967 Rules, also contains a note which is as follows : 3. If the income of any other person is includible in your total income under the provisions of Section 60, 61, 62, 63 or 64 of the Incometax Act, 1961, such income should also be shown in this return under the appropriate heads. 14. But no separate column has been provided for inclusion of the income under Section 60, 61, 62, 63 or 64 of the Incometax Act, 1961. 15. The rules were amended by the Incometax (Amendment) Rules, 1971, which came into force on April 1, 1971. In the return form prescribed by the Rules, there is no separate column indicated but only a note was appended being Note No. 1 which is as follows : If the income of any other person is includible in your total income under the provisions of Section 60, 61, 62, 63 or 64 of the Incometax Act, 1961, such incomes should also be shown separately in this return under the appropriate heads. 16.Surprisingly, even after the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.D.M.RM.M.RM. Muthiah Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 183, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, while amending the Rules, did not provide any separa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of one of the partners, namely, Shree Hasitkumar Bhatt, the concerned Assessing Officer, after considering the reply filed by him, dropped the reassessment proceedings. In the case of one another partner, namely, Harshitkumar Devendrakumar Bhatt, the inquiry in respect of the very same properties was made by the concerned Assessing Officer vide notice dated 11th March, 2019. Pursuant thereto, the said assessee filed his reply dated 19th March, 2019, pointing out that such properties were purchased by the partnership firm (M/s. Shree Khodiyar Developers) and the sale consideration was paid by the said firm. Having regard to such reply, the Assessing Officer thought fit not to initiate the reassessment proceedings in his hands. 43. In our opinion, there is no escapement of income chargeable to tax. The conditions precedent for resorting to reassessment under Section 147 of the Act are not satisfied in the present case. Just because the partnership firm failed to file its return of income for the relevant year, by itself, will not confer jurisdiction upon the authority concerned to issue notice against the individual partners of the firm with respect to their individual re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay not be possible for the Revenue to adhere to the time limits prescribed under Section 149, as the order of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court, proceeding under any other law may be passed beyond the period contemplated under section 149. It is for this reason, the legislature has not placed any time limit for making the assessment or re-assessment in such circumstances and for this reason, Section 150 begins with a non-obstante clause. At the same time, it does not mean that the power under Section 150(1) is uncanalised or unrestricted. The safeguard has been built under Sub-section (2) of Section 150. The entire object of Section 150 (2) is to bar the proceedings under Sub-Section (1) in the matter of assessment/re-assessment or re-computation, which has become the subject matter of the reference or revision by reason of any other provisions limiting the time limit. Section 150 (1) provides that the power to issue notice under Section 148 in consequence of or giving effect to any finding or direction of the Appellate/Revisional Authority or the Court, is subject to the provision contained in Section 150(2), which provides that directions under Section 150(1) cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
