The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Tribunal's order. The Court held that all three substantial questions of law raised were not substantial enough to be entertained and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
182-14-itxa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2014
Shilpa Granites Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant v/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-33, Mumbai .. Respondent
Mr. Pradeep Parikh for the appellant None for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.
DATED : 11th AUGUST, 2016.
P.C.
1 of 5
Uday S. Jagtap
182-14-itxa=.doc
provisions for assessment of search cases contained under Chapter XIV-B of the Act?
(b) Whether initiation of reassesssment proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the case is not bad in law on account of the absence of requisite “reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment” in terms of Section 147 of the Act?
(c) Whether under the provisions of Section 254(1) of the Act, it is permissible to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to remand the matter to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for afresh adjudication without pointing out any defects in the appealed order ?”
2 of 5
Uday S. Jagtap
182-14-itxa=.doc
as the Revenue's appeal from the order of the CIT(A) in respect of reopening notice for the A.Y. 1997-98 is concerned, the impugned order allowed it by way of remand to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
6. Regarding Question (a) :-
The impugned order of the Tribunal while upholding the order of the CIT(A) to the extent it held that no assessment under Section 158BC of the Act could be made in respect of the materials not found during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act. The proceedings for reopening an assessment under Sections 147 / 148 of the Act are not constrained by any such restriction. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act is not in respect of materials which could be subject to block assessment. This is self
3 of 5
Uday S. Jagtap
182-14-itxa=.doc
evident. Thus, question (a) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not entertained.
7. Regarding question (b) :-
The impugned order of the Tribunal has restored the issue of the validity of the reopening notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act to the CIT(A). It is before the CIT(A) that the appellant can urge the question framed herein that the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the above view, question (b) as proposed at this stage does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not entertained.
8. Regarding question (c) :-
In the facts of the present case, the impugned order of the Tribunal found that CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the reopening under Section 148 of the Act. Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal has restored the entire issue to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee. Therefore, the reason for restoring the issue to CIT(A) is evident from the impugned order of the Tribunal.
4 of 5
Uday S. Jagtap
182-14-itxa=.doc
Therefore, question (c) also does not give rise to any substantial
question of law. Hence, not entertained.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
5 of 5
Uday S. Jagtap
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there can be a valid reassessment under Section 147 for an assessment year forming part of a block period under Chapter XIV-B.
Whether initiation of reassessment proceedings is invalid due to absence of requisite 'reasons to believe' under Section 147.
Whether the Tribunal can remand a matter to the CIT(A) under Section 254(1) without pointing out defects in the appealed order.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shilpa Granites Pvt. Ltd.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-33, Mumbai
M.S. Sanklecha
A.K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
