Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gopal S. Pandit, proprietor of Pandit Developers, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench 'B', dated 27.07.2016 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. The ITAT had upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee contended that the reassessment notices were issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years and that there was no failure on his part to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Revenue argued that the reassessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for both sides, found that the ITAT had correctly upheld the reassessment. The court noted that the reassessment notices were issued within the prescribed time limit and that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the court held that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Income Tax - Reassessment - Section 147/148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Validity of Notice - The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment beyond four years on the ground that there was no failure to disclose material facts. The court held that the reassessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and the notice was issued within the prescribed period. (Paras 1-10)
B) Income Tax - Appeal - Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Substantial Question of Law - The court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal, as the findings of fact were concurrent and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, and whether any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order of the ITAT. The reassessment proceedings were upheld.
Law Points
- Reassessment under Section 147/148 of Income Tax Act
- 1961
- can be initiated within four years from end of assessment year if income escaped assessment due to failure of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts
- Substantial question of law must arise for appeal under Section 260-A
- No interference with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (06) 28
Dr. Vineet Kothari, S. Sujatha
R. Chandrashekar (for appellant), Jeevan J. Neeralgi (for respondents)
Gopal S. Pandit, Prop. Pandit Developers
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore & The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mangalore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding reassessment proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the order of the ITAT and quash the reassessment notices.
Filing Reason
The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10.
Previous Decisions
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B', by order dated 27.07.2016 in ITA No.1186/Bang/2013, upheld the reassessment proceedings.
Issues
Whether the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were validly issued within the prescribed period?
Whether the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment?
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the reassessment notices were issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years and there was no failure to disclose material facts.
The respondents argued that the reassessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Ratio Decidendi
Reassessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be initiated within four years from the end of the assessment year if income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse, and no substantial question of law arises for appeal under Section 260-A.
Judgment Excerpts
The Assessee – Gopal S. Pandit, Proprietor - Pandit Developers, Mangalore, has filed this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short], raising the purported substantial questions of law arising from the Order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B”, dated 27.07.2016 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10.
The learned Counsel for the Assessee has suggested the following three substantial questions of law in the ...
Procedural History
The Assessing Officer issued reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. The assessee objected, but the reassessment was completed. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which by order dated 27.07.2016 in ITA No.1186/Bang/2013, upheld the reassessment. The assessee filed the present appeal under Section 260-A before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Income Tax Act, 1961: 147, 148, 260-A
