PFIZER LTD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
V. Balasubramanian, Vice President -
(1.) AN original assessment was made in this case (sic), subsequently the ITO received some information from the Internal Audit section of the department leading to a belief that the income has escaped assessment. He, therefore, reopened the surtax assessment made for the year under appeal, under Section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Act'). The assessment was made under Section 6(2) of the Act, wherein the ITO reduced for the purposes of capital computation a proportionate amount under Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act. He also reduced the capital by the amount paid out of the general reserve for the year.
(2.) The assessee's appeal against the reassessment was both on the validity thereof and the validity of the notice served. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the assessee's claim. It is thus that the matter is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out at least three palpable defects in the reassessment : firstly, that there was no information justifying the reopening of the assessment; secondly, even if there was information, the ITO could have made a reassessment only in respect of items for which admittedly there was further information ; and thirdly, that the notice not having been validly served, the reassessment was ab initio void and liable to be set aside.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parlies we would decide the appeal mainly on the last ground relating to the service of the notice. In view of our decision on this point, the other grounds require no decision.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.