Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Hyderabad Race Club – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
ORDER:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. J.Sunita, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the second notice dated 03.10.2008, passed by the respondent under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 147 , 148 and 153(2) of the Act.
3. The facts of the case, are that, the petitioner filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 on 24.11.2003 declaring an income of Rs.1,37,32,680/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act without variations. On 28.03.2007, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment citing concerns about cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- made to successful punters and their treatment under Section 40A(3) of the Act. The petitioner responded by requesting reasons for reopening and clarified that the original return should be treated as compliance with the notice while
Statutory time limits for reassessment are fundamental; once expired, subsequent notices for the same assessment year are invalid and undermine taxpayers' certainty.
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if based on materials already available during the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion without fresh evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
