I. Headlines Today:     

1. CBDT signs 7 advance pricing agreements to cut tax litigation  (Click for detail)
   

2. Tax payers can now e-verify ITRs using bank, demat a/c details  (Click for detail)
   

3. Delhi VAT officers to play cop  (Click for detail)
   

4. Let there be light on India’s tax data  (Click for detail)
   

5. CBEC amended the notifications 56-57/2002 dated 14.11.02 in relation to exemption of excise duty on certain goods in the state of J&K  (Click for detail)

1.  Dushyant Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT, Writ Petition (C) 1569/2015 & CM No. 2800/2015, Date of Order: 15.01.2016, High Court of Delhi

Whether an ITO who had not passed original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for a particular A.Y., empowered to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for the same A.Y.

Held_No

In brief, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 was issued just before the expiry of extended time limit as specified u/s 149(1)(b) for reopening of assessment by the AO who has no jurisdiction over the assessee. Subsequently, the AO of the assessee has also issued a notice u/s 148 which was beyond the specified time limit.

The revenue stated vide affidavit that earlier notice was issued by the legitimate AO as far as the jurisdiction is concerned. The AO includes DCIT and other superior officers or an ITO  who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of direction or orders issued u/s 120(1) or 120(2) or any other provision of the Income Tax Act, and the ACIT or AD or JC or JD who is directed u/s 120(4)(b) to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an AO under the Act [Section 2(7A)].

The Hon’ble High Court has held that it is only the AO who issued the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, is empowered to exercise powers u/s 147/148 to re-open the assessment as he alone would be in a position to form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment. Writ petition of the assessee was allowed.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  ADIT Vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma , CRM No.A-1127-MA of 2015 (O&M), Date of Decision: 11.12.2015, Punjab & Haryana High Court

Whether the recoding of statement during search u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 necessitate taking of oath again after the break taken during the statement, where such statement was closed with signatures before break?

Held: No

The ADIT (Inv.)-II filed an application u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class for the absence of oath while recording statement before a public servant. At the start of the statement, oath was taken by the respondent with the signatures and then the statement was recorded in question-answer form. After the same signatures of respondent and competent authority were taken and RO & AC (Read over & Accepted Correct) has been written by the person making the statement inferring that this statement has been completed. Thereafter, the statement was again recorded on the same day by writing about continuity of the statement but without taking the oath for second time.

The hon’ble High Court observed that the statement taken after resuming the break, without the oath stands invalid and upheld the findings of Ld. Magistrate. Permission to further appeal was not granted.

(Please click here for judgment)   

III. A Useful Article:

(Please click here for detail)

 Golden Rules:

  "The true test of character is not how much we know how to do,
but how we behave when we don't know what to do"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team

Voice of CA