News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
« From the Courts »
 Delhi High Court issues Video-Conferencing Rules to streamline and consolidate process and its usage in Courts
 Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, 599, 2nd Floor, Gandhi Cloth Market, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi
 Excess ITC has to be Refunded back to Dealer, can’t be carried Forward for Adjustment of Future Tax Liability: Madras HC
 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4828-29/24, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi
 Urmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya A-21, First Floor, Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi Vs. ACIT Central Circle, Karnal
 Shri Surat Singh, VPO Bhapra, Samhalka, vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward : 4, Panipat.
 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi
 SC directs DRT to Transmit Rent received from Property attached to the Amrapali Account
 Vardhman Automobiles (P.) Ltd., Opposite Air Force School, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon- Vs. The ITO, TDS Ward, Gurgaon.
 M/s. Sheela Foam Ltd., (Foprmerly known as Sheela Foam Pvt.Ltd.), 37/2, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi.
 ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs Sh. Sohan Singh Dhingra (HUF), 85, Golf Links, New Delhi

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 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting