SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1679

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
M/s. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 2016
Decided On : 09-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Shashim Kapila, Advocate, Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Arijit Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Gargi Khanna, Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate, Mr. B.V.B. Das, Advocate

Re-assessment cannot be done when there is no original assessment order passed under the relevant Act, as the question of re-assessment arises only when there is an assessment in the first instance.

Headnote:

Interest Tax Act, 1974 - Re-assessment - Assessment Year 1997-98 - The court held that re-assessment cannot be done when there is no original assessment order passed under Section 10 of the Act, relying on the ratio laid down in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000]242 ITR 381 SC.

Fact of the Case:

The issue for consideration relates to the Assessment Year 1997-98 under the Interest Tax Act, 1974. The Assessing Officer sought to re-open the assessment much after the last date of the Assessment Year was over, and proceeded to re-assess the interest chargeable under the Act. The High Court reversed the view taken by the Tribunal, holding that re-assessment could be done even if there was no original assessment order passed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the High Court had wrongly not acted upon the ratio laid down in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust's, which squarely applies in the instant case in favor of the assessee. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.

Issues: The main contention was whether re-assessment could be done when there was no original assessment order passed in the original proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio of the judgment in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000]242 ITR 381 SC was applied, stating that re-assessment cannot be done when there is no assessment order passed, as the question of re-assessment arises only when there is an assessment in the first instance.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The issue for consideration relates to the Assessment Year 1997-98 under the Interest Tax Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The admitted facts are that on the return filed by the appellant/assessee for this Assessment Year, no assessment order was passed. However, much after the last date of the Assessment Year is over, the Assessing Officer sought to re-open the assessment by issuing notice under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter proceeded to re-assess the interest chargeable under the aforesaid Act. The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee. The main contention of the assessee was that when there was no assessment order even passed in the original proceedings there was no question of re-opening the so-called assessment and make the re-assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the aforesaid contention and set aside the re-assessment order. This order was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')as well. However, in further appeal filed by the Revenue before the High Court, the High Court has reversed the view taken by the Tribunal holding that even if there was no original assessment order passed under Section 10 of the Act, there could be re-assessment. We may note that the assessee had relied upon various judgments in support including the judgment of this Court in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000]242 ITR 381 SC. The High Court has held that the said judgment would not govern the case at hand.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court has wrongly not acted upon the ratio laid down in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust's which squarely applies in the instant case in favour of the assessee. The ratio of the said judgment is that in those situations where there is no assessment order passed, there cannot be a notice for re-assessment inasmuch as the question of re-assessment arises only when there is an assessment in the first instance.

4. We, thus, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top