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

1996 Supreme(All) 966

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.K. Mukherjee, M.C. Agarwal, JJ.
Smt. Jamila Ansari - Appellants
Versus
Income Tax Department And Anr. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 530 of 1994
Decided on : Sep 03, 1996

Advocates appeared:
Sudhir Chandra, S.D. Singh, Shekhar Srivastava

An Income-tax Officer has no power to review his order and he could not do so in the purported exercise of the authority under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - REASSESSMENT - SECTION 147 - INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS - WHETHER EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 80HHC - TRIBUNAL'S FINDING FOR ANOTHER YEAR - WHETHER REASON TO BELIEVE INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT - ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WITHOUT HEARING ASSESSEE - WHETHER VALID.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in the export of rugs and druggets, claimed a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for interest earned on fixed deposit receipts. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the deduction, but later allowed it under Section 154 of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued to the petitioner, and a reassessment order was passed, excluding the interest income from the deduction under Section 80HHC. The petitioner challenged the notice and the assessment order by way of a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings were not germane to the determination of the income for the year under consideration and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were not validly initiated. The court also held that the assessment order was patently illegal and intended to prevent the assessee from challenging the notice in an appropriate forum.

Issues: 1. Whether the interest income from fixed deposit receipts was exempt under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal's finding for another year could be a reason to believe that income escaped assessment for the year under consideration? 3. Whether the assessment order passed without hearing the assessee was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal's finding on the facts relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 could not be mechanically adopted for the assessment year 1988-89 and could not provide a reason to believe that for the assessment year 1988-89 also, the interest income was to be taxed as income from other sources. 2. The court held that an Income-tax Officer has no power to review his order and he could not do so in the purported exercise of the authority under Section 147 of the Act. The mere fact, that for another year, the Tribunal had taken another view on the facts relating to that year, could not be a ground for having reason to believe that the same conclusions can be drawn for the year under consideration. 3. The court held that the Assessing Officer indulged in gross impropriety and illegality in not waiting for the assessee to appear on the scheduled date and in finalising the assessment a day before.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned assessment order and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

Judgment :

M.C. Agarwal, J.

1. BY this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an assessment order dated January 31, 1994, passed under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and a preceding notice under Section 148 dated February 2, 1993.

2. WE have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, assisted by Sri S. D. Singh, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is doing the business of export of rugs and druggets. Under section 80HHC of the Act, profits derived by an assessee from the export of goods are to be excluded from its total income. The petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 1988-89 was initially made on March 16, 1989, in which no deduction under Section 80HHC was allowed in respect of interest amounting to Rs. 8,92,226 earned on fixed deposit receipts which was taken to the profit and loss account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer discussed the petitioner's claim as under :

"On a perusal of balance-sheet it shows that the assessee is having of F.D.R. of Rs. 32,55,000. In spite of specific queries, the assessee has not furnished the details of interest account and as such a notice under Section 143(3) dated March 9, 1989, has been given asking the assessee to furnish the details of interest account. In compliance with the assessee had filed a written reply dated March 15, 1989, and stated that the interest received on FDR is Rs. 3,92,226, while claiming the deduction under Section 80HHC the assessee has considered the interest and contended that interest on FDR is to be considered while making the claim under Section 80HHC. From the records of the assessee it is seen that in the assessment year 1986-87 a similar issue was involved and the assessee was not allowed the deduction of bank interest while calculating the claim under Section 80HHC. Against this order, the assessee went in appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the same, vide order dated July 22, 1988. This order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not accepted by the Department and second appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal which is still pending. In view of these circumstances, the interest on FDR amounting to Rs. 3,92,226 and profit on sale of premium entitlement amounting to Rs. 69,464 are not treated as export profit and the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC on these two amounts. "

3. THE assessment was set aside on the assessee's appeal preferred to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and a fresh assessment was made on December 26, 1990, in which again the assessee's claim was not accepted. Subsequently, by an order dated January 30, 1991, passed under Section 154 of the Act, the Assessing Officer rectified the assessment at the instance of the petitioner and allowed deduction of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,92,226 under Section 80HHC of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated February 2, 1993, under Section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file a return of income as he had reasons to believe that her income for the said year had escaped assessment. THE petitioner filed a revised return declaring an income of Rs. 41,370 that was declared earlier. This was done on December 2, 1993, and, simultaneously, she applied to the Assessing Officer to supply her the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings. THE reasons were supplied through a letter dated January 18, 1994, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure "7". THE reasons for the issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act have been stated as under :

"From the perusal of "A" balance-sheet, it is evident that assessee possesses fixed deposit with bank for Rs. 32,55,000 and enjoyed interest income of FDRs to the tune of Rs. 3,92,226. THE income from interest on FDR is taxable u









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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