Monday, 18 August 2014

Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)


S. 147: If “reasons to believe” are not based on new, “tangible materials”, the reopening amounts to an impermissible review
(ii) The foundation of the AO’s jurisdiction and the raison d’etre of a reassessment notice are the “reasons to believe”. Now this should have a relation or a link with an objective fact, in the form of information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such external facts or material constitute the driver, or the key which enables the authority to legitimately re-open the completed assessment. In absence of this objective “trigger”, the AO does not possess jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is at the next stage that the question, whether the re-opening of assessment amounts to “review” or “change of opinion” arises. In other words, if there are no “reasons to believe” based on new, “tangible materials”, then the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. Here, there is nothing to show what triggered the issuance of notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Orient Craft Ltd 354 ITR 536 (Delhi) followed, Usha International 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) referred)

No comments:

Switzerland revokes unilateral MFN benefit under India-Switzerland Tax Treaty w.e.f. 1 January 2025

  This Tax Alert summarizes a recent Statement issued by Switzerland Competent Authority [1] (Swiss CA) on 11 December 2024 (2024 Statement...