High CourtsDivision Bench(2000) 02 BOM CK 0044

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajendra G. Shah

Bombay High Court · Decided on 28 February 2000 · Citation: (2001) 247 ITR 772 : (2001) 117 TAXMAN 280

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.H. Kapadia, J · A.P. Shah, J
CASE NUMBER
Income-tax Appeal No. 85 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 273 words
1.

On June 29, 1982, a return was filed by the assessee. Pending the said, return, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, came to be issued on January 28, 1985. The assessee was, accordingly, reassessed on March 15, 1985. This order u/s 147 came to be set aside on January 28, 1986, and the matter was remanded back for fresh assessment which was made on March 30, 1988. This was once again set aside by the appellate authority on February 17, 1989, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment which was done on March 26, 1990.

2.

In the present matter, the short point which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether proceedings u/s 148 could have been instituted when the return filed on June 29, 1982, was pending assessment. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that notice u/s 148 and proceedings taken by the Department thereafter were bad in law as there could not have been reopening of the assessment when the return dated June 29, 1982, was pending. We have examined the records ourselves and we find that there is nothing to indicate how reassessment proceedings could have been instituted when the main return filed by the assessee on June 29, 1982, was still pending assessment. All proceedings have been taken thereafter pursuant to the reopening of the assessment in 1985, losing sight of the fact that the main return filed by the assessee on June 29, 1982, was pending. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal was right in annulling the assessment proceedings. Hence, no substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed.