- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajesh Kumar v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the assessee challenging the consolidated order dated June 30, 2008, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in cross appeals filed by both the appellant and the Revenue. The ITAT held that the assessment completed was within the period of limitation, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, [2008] 300 ITR 403. The appellant contended that in his own case, Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, [2006] 287 ITR 91, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor that the assessee must be granted an opportunity of hearing before proceeding under section 142(2A). The appellant argued that the assessment framed under section 158BC was barred by limitation under sections 158BE read with 142(2A). The respondent supported the ITAT order relying on Sahara India (Firm), which upheld Rajesh Kumar but held that its ruling on limitation would apply prospectively and could not be raised before the appellate authority. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the assessment framed under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act was barred by limitation under sections 158BE read with 142(2A) of the Act.
- Whether the principle of audi alteram partem (opportunity of hearing) must be observed before proceeding under section 142(2A).
- Whether the ruling in Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT applies retrospectively or prospectively in the context of limitation and validity of assessment orders.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, which held that an opportunity of hearing must be granted before proceeding under section 142(2A).
- The appellant contended that the assessment framed under section 158BC was barred by limitation as per sections 158BE read with 142(2A).
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent supported the ITAT order relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sahara India (Firm), which upheld Rajesh Kumar but clarified that the ruling on audi alteram partem applies prospectively.
- The respondent argued that it was not open to the appellant to raise the question of limitation before the appellate authority, as per the Sahara India (Firm) ruling.
- However, the appellant could question the correctness of the material gathered under section 142(2A) before the appellate authority.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, [2008] 300 ITR 403 | Clarification that the ruling on audi alteram partem (opportunity of hearing) under section 142(2A) applies prospectively; limitation cannot be raised before the appellate authority; upheld Rajesh Kumar decision prospectively. | The court relied on this precedent to uphold the ITAT order and reject the appellant's contention regarding limitation, holding that the law applies prospectively and limiting the appellant's challenge to the material gathered under section 142(2A). |
| Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, [2006] 287 ITR 91 | Requirement of granting opportunity of hearing (audi alteram partem) before proceeding under section 142(2A). | The court acknowledged this precedent as favorable to the appellant but clarified through Sahara India (Firm) that its effect is prospective and does not invalidate past assessments. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the appellant's challenge to the assessment framed under section 158BC, which was alleged to be barred by limitation due to non-observance of the audi alteram partem principle under section 142(2A). The court examined the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajesh Kumar, which mandated an opportunity of hearing before proceeding under section 142(2A). However, the court relied on the subsequent larger Bench decision in Sahara India (Firm), which upheld Rajesh Kumar but held that its ruling applies prospectively. The Sahara India judgment clarified that although earlier orders may have been vitiated for failure to observe audi alteram partem, the question of limitation cannot be raised before the appellate authority in those cases. The court thus found the ITAT's reliance on Sahara India valid and concluded that the appellant could only challenge the correctness of the material gathered under section 142(2A), not the limitation period. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the ITAT order that the assessment was within limitation and that the principle laid down in Sahara India (Firm) governs the issue. The direct effect is that the appellant cannot challenge the limitation period retrospectively based on non-observance of audi alteram partem under section 142(2A). No new precedent was set; the court applied existing Supreme Court rulings to the facts, confirming the prospective application of Rajesh Kumar as clarified in Sahara India (Firm).
1. This appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short) by the assessee challenges the consolidated order dated June 30, 2008, of the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the cross appeal filed by the appellant and the Revenue in IT(SS) No. 10.Del/2007 and IT(SS) No. 17.D61/20071. Vide this order, the learned Appellate Tribunal has held that the assessment completed was within the period of limitation and in the light of the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, [2008] 300 ITR 403.
2. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that in his own case, that is, Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, [2006] 287 ITR 91, the apex court had ruled in his favour, that opportunity of hearing has to be granted to the assessee before proceeding under section 142(2A).
3. Thus, according to the petitioner, the impugned assessment framed under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation within the meaning of the provisions contained in section 158BE read with section 1412 (2A) of the Act.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of Sahara India (Firm), [2008] 300 ITR 403. The hon'ble apex court in that case upheld the judgment in Rajesh Kumar, [2006] 287 ITR 91 but held that although the orders in question were vitiated by failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem, its ruling on the question of law would apply prospectively and that it would not be open for the appellant to raise the question of limitation before the appellate authority. The relevant excerpts of the judgment of Sahara India (Firm), [2008] 300 ITR 403, 419 are as under:
“There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar, [2006] 287 ITR 91 (SC) was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-judge Bench of this court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on December 14, 2006, this court had declined to stay the assessment proceedings, we are of the opinion that this court should be loathe to quash the impugned orders. Accordingly, we hold that the law on the subject, clarified by us, will apply prospectively and it will not be open to the appellants to urge before the appellate authority that the extended period of limitation under Explanation 1(iii) to section 153(3) of the Act was not available to the Assessing Officer because of an invalid order under section 142(2A) of the Act.”
5. However, it will be open to the appellants to question before the appellate authority, if so advised, the correctness of the material gathered on the basis of the audit report submitted under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act. The case of the appellant is covered by the abovestated observations made by the larger Bench in Sahara India (Firm), [2008] 300 ITR 403. The decision of the learned Appellate Tribunal based on Sahara India (Firm) is held to be valid.
6. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed.
Alert