Skip to main content

Whether Document Obtained Under RTI Act Can Be Accepted As Evidence, After A Lapse Of 18 Years

While the above can be treated as a secondary question, one more question which arose before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in a recent case of R Romi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram reported in 2014- TOIL-424-HC-KERALA-IT was whether a block assessment can be completed without issuing a notice u/s 143[2] of the Indian Income Tax Act. Briefing down the facts of the case, pursuant to a search U/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assesse was assessed U/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act read with Section 158BC, for the block period of almost ten years commencing from 01.04.1985 to 15.09.1995. Notice under Section 158BC was issued to the Assessee on 25.06.1996. The Assessee filed a NIL return of income and subsequently the AO passed an order U/s 143(3) read with Section 158 BC determining the total undisclosed income at Rs. 9, 55, 380/- and demanding income tax of Rs. 5, 73, 228/-.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:

On appeal before the Tribunal it was contended by the Assessee that since no notice U/s 143(2) was issued, the entire assessment should have been set aside. However the Tribunal was of the view that the Assessee was subjected to search in the year 1995 and the appeal was being head afresh in 2013, therefore the possibility of misplacing the 143(2) notice cannot be ruled out in this span of almost 18 years. It was also observed that the Assessee did not urge this legal issue at the time of filing the appeal before the Tribunal, but urged for the first time before us after a lapse of considerable years. The Tribunal reduced the addition to a limited extent.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA:

Aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal, the Assessee had appealed with the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala wherein he produced a document based on the Right to Information Act, which suggests that no such notice was issued. The Hon'ble Court also requested the standing counsel of the Department to verify the correctness of the information received in the RTI to which the counsel fairly submitted that the information was correct and no notice was issued under Section 143(2).
The two main questions which arose are reiterated below:
1. Whether block assessment could have been completed without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act and whether such omission would be a procedural irregularity or is curable?
2. Whether document obtained under Right to Information Act for establishing the non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) can be accepted as evidence, although there has been a lapse of 18 years since the search was first conducted.
After going through the Section 143(2) of the Act and relying on the judgment of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. V, Hotel Blue Moon, reported in [2010] 321 ITR 362, the Court came to the conclusion that there was no dispute that in order to make an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 158 BC, notice should be issued U/s 143(2) and omission to issue such a notice is not a procedural irregularity and is not curable.
Further, as it was also accepted by the Department that no such notice was issued, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal in favor of the Assessee and set aside the order of the Tribunal and the Assessing officer.

Article referred: http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/311412/disclosure+electronic+discovery+privilege/Whether+Document+Obtained+Under+Right+To+Information+Act+Can+Be+Accepted+As+Evidence+After+A+Lapse+Of+18+Years

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more