News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
  Tej Lal Bharti A-101, Sahara Apartments, Sector-VI, Dwarka, New Delhi. vs. ITO Ward-67(4), Civic Centre, New Delhi.
 Tej Lal Bharti A-101, Sahara Apartments, Sector-VI, Dwarka, New Delhi. vs. ITO Ward-67(4), Civic Centre, New Delhi.
 Umesh Kumar Tyagi C/o Kapil Goel, Adv. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi. vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad.
 Devki Nandan Bindal C/o Kapil Goel, Adv., F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi. vs. ITO Ward-46(3), New Delhi.
 Sanjay Mittra G-25, Green Park, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-26 New Delhi
 Ratan Pal Kein Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Chamber No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (2) Ghaziabad
 Jhabua Power Investments Ltd. Thapar House, 124 Janpath New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13 (3) New Delhi
 The Income Tax officer (E), Ward-1(3), E-2 Block, Room No.2419, 24th Floor, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi PIN 110 002. vs. DLF Qutab Elclave Complex Medical Charitable Trust, 9th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
 V. K. Kapoor & Associates Pvt. Ltd. 17, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, vs. ITO Ward-26(1) C.R. Building, New Delhi
 Sant Singh Ram Lal 3963-B, Naya Bazar, Delhi. PIN: 110006 vs. ITO Ward-47(1) New Delhi
 Amendment of Form No 108 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962- Draft notification for inputs from stakeholders and the general public

Teena Gupta vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
April, 12th 2017

A question relating to jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter can always be raised at any stage. Issues relating to initiation of s. 147 proceedings and/or service of notice are questions relating to assumption of jurisdiction. If an issue has not been decided in appeal and has simply been remanded, the same can be raised again notwithstanding with the fact that no further appeal has been preferred (Sun Engineering Works 198 ITR 297 (SC) explained)

(a) From the aforesaid decisions, it follows that

(i) a question relating to jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter can always be raised at any stage, be in appeal or revision,

(ii) initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and/or service of notice are all questions relating to assumption of jurisdiction to assess escaped income,

(iii) if an issue has not been decided in appeal and the matter has simply been remanded, the same can be raised again notwithstanding with the fact that no further appeal has been preferred,

(iv) in the reassessment proceedings, relief in respect of item which was not originally claimed can not be claimed again as the reassessment proceedings are for the benefit of the Revenue and

(v) relief can only be claimed in respect of the escaped income.

(b) Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, we find that in the first round of proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appellant had specifically questioned the validity of the proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Act. That issue was not decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) who had remanded the matter for fresh assessment after providing opportunity of hearing. The question relating to the jurisdiction assumed under section 147/148 of the Act goes to the very root of the matter and it can be raised in appeal for the first time. The appellant had raised this question again in appeal and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to adjudicate upon the grounds taken before him. In fact, he had casually observed that the proceedings under section 148 of the Act had been validly initiated but, wrongly applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC).

(c) The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) would not apply as the appellant is not claiming any deduction or relief on the taxibility of any item in the reopened assessment proceedings which had not been claimed in the original assessment.

 

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Integrated Software Solutions Integrated Software Development Integrated Software Services Integrated Software Solutions India Integrated Softw

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions