| Case ID |
2b75eab2-7305-4254-8e9f-473f97fbb32a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2155 OF 2012 |
| Decision Date |
May 28, 2012 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that a notice under section 147/148 can be issued even when the Assessing Officer could have issued a scrutiny notice under section 143(2) depending upon the facts of the case. The court emphasized that it is unusual for the Assessing Officer to record reasons to believe and issue notice under section 148 when he had the option to issue a notice under section 143(2). However, the court also noted that the broad assertion that a notice under section 147/148 cannot be issued if a notice under section 143(2) could have been issued is not universally valid and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The court remanded the matter, allowing the revenue to withdraw the notice issued under section 147/148 and to issue a fresh notice after recording reasons to believe, thus reinforcing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in tax assessments. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Acorus Unitech Wireless P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Delhi High Court addressed crucial issues regarding the issuance of reassessment notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the assessment year 2009-10, where the petitioner challenged the validity of a reassessment notice issued under section 147/148. The court deliberated on the procedural intricacies involved, particularly whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue such a notice when he could have opted for a scrutiny notice under section 143(2). The judges highlighted the significance of the reasons to believe and the conditions under which reassessment can be initiated. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the revenue to withdraw the original notice while emphasizing the need for proper procedural adherence in tax assessments. This case is pivotal for tax practitioners, as it clarifies the boundaries of the Assessing Officer's powers in reassessment proceedings and reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in ensuring fair tax administration. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
Sanjiv Khanna,
R.V. Easwar
|
| Lawyers |
C.S. Aggarwal,
Prakash Kumar,
Sanjeev Rajpal
|
| Petitioners |
Acorus Unitech Wireless P. Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 1(1), Delhi
|
| Citations |
2012 SLD 3282 = (2012) 345 ITR 228
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Ved & Co. [2008] 302 ITR 328 / [2007] 162 taxman 366 (Delhi),
CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karnsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC),
Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 / 109 taxman 193 (SC),
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asstt. DIT [2007] 292 ITR 49 / 159 Taxman 191 (Delhi),
M.Ct. Muthuraman v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 656 (Mad.),
V.S. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 678 (Mad.),
CAIT v. K.H. Parameswara Bhat [1954] 97 ITR 190 (Ker.),
Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 / 161 Taxman 316 (SC),
CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 taxman 312 (SC),
CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 / 123 Taxman 433 (FB)(Delhi),
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT [2000] 246 ITR 173 / 112 taxman 337 (Delhi)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147,
148,
143(2)
|