This Tax Case concerns the validity of a reassessment order under Section 147 completed without a Section 143(2) notice within the stipulated period. The High Court applied a coordinate Bench decision.
The Tax Case is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Tax Case No.1354 of 2005
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
Trichy. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Sri.S.M.Palaniappa Chettiar (Deceased)
2. P.Chellappan
3. P.L.Muthu
4. P.L.Gandhi
5. Y.E.Kannamma
6. A.L.Solai
(RR2 to 6 substituted as LRs of
the deceased sole respondent
vide order dated 21.8.2012 in
M.P.No.2 of 2012.) ... Respondents
Tax Case filed under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 16.9.2003 in ITA No.604/Mds/2003, and against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirappalli, dated 23.01.2003 made in ITA Nos.59 to 64 and 66 & 67/02-03, against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I, Tiruchirappalli dated 22/3/2002, made in PAN/GIR No.101PP3;
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J.)
Learned counsels at Bar would submit that the issue involved in the present Tax Case is squarely covered by the decision of a
coordinate Bench of this court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer ((2012) 82 CCH 86), wherein it is held as under:-
"13. As far as the present case is concerned, the provisions of Section 148 also uses the expression "so far as may be apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139". Thus, understanding this provisions in the background of the decision of the Apex Court on the facts available, we are of the view that in completing the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections 142 and 143(2) is mandatory. On the admitted fact that beyond notice under Section 142 (1), there was no notice issued under Section 143 (2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment was the failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the capital gains arising on the transfer of property for assessment and that admittedly the assessee had requested the officer to accept the original return as a return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 and completion of assessment without issue of notice under Section 143(2) within twelve months is not valid?"
present Tax Case is covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in the aforesaid case and therefore, the present Tax Case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate,
Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle-I, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli.
T.C.No.1354 of 2005
br[co]
srg 2/3/2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 and completion without notice under Section 143(2) within twelve months is valid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax OfficerApplied¶10
Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer ((2012) 82 CCH 86)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Trichy
Sri. S.M. Palaniappa Chettiar (Deceased) and others
DR. VINEET KOTHARI
DR. ANITA SUMANTH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
