PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 versus NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 08-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6
v.
NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 3450  of  2019)
APRIL 08, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss.260-A, 148 – Assessing officer
(AO) issued notice to the respondent u/s.148 – Objections raised
by the respondent were accepted by the ITAT – Aggrieved, Revenue
filed appeal in the High Court – High Court dismissed the appeal in
limine on the ground that it did not involve any substantial question
of law within the meaning of s.260A of the Act – On appeal, held:
The order of the High Court legally not sustainable – The following
four questions need to be answered by the High Court on their
respective merits while deciding the appeal filed by the Revenue u/
s.260-A of the Act – (i)Whether the ITAT was justified in holding
that  the notice issued by the AO u/s.148 was bad in law when
admittedly the impugned notice was issued in the case where the
assessment was made u/s.143(1) of the Act but not u/s.143(3) of the
Act – (ii)Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the notice
issued u/s.148 of the Act was bad because it was based on mere
change of opinion by overlooking the fact that there was no
foundation to form any such opinion – (iii) When admittedly the
notice in question satisfied the requirements of s.148 of the Act as it
stood, namely, that first, it contained the facts constituting the
“reasons to believe” and second, it furnished the necessary details
for assessing the escaped income of the assessee, whether the ITAT
was still justified in declaring the notice as being bad in law without
taking into consideration any of these admitted facts – (iv) In case,
if the notice is held proper and legal, whether the finding recorded
by the ITAT on the merits of the case on each item, which is subject
matter of the notice, is legally sustainable – Thus, case remanded to
the High Court for answering the aforementioned questions on merits
in accordance with law.
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 478
478
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3450 of
2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2017 of the  High
Court of  Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 854 of 2016.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Akshay Amritanshu (for Mrs. Anil Katiyar),
Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikas Srivastava, Jatinder Pal Singh, Sumit Mangal, Vikrant A.
Maheshwari (for  Mayank Pandey),  Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
21.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA
No.854 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this
appeal, which involves a short point.
4. By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the Revenue’s (appellant herein) appeal filed under Section
260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) on the ground that it did not involve any substantial question of
law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the Act.
5. In other words, the High Court was of the view that since the
appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, it deserves dismissal
in limine.
6. The appellant is the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax)
and the respondent is an assessee. The issue arises out of an assessment
year (1999-2000).
7. The issue essentially relates to legality and correctness of the
notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the respondent under
Section 148 of the Act and to the consequential determination made by
the AO in the assessment order for which the impugned notice was
issued to the respondent.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 v. NOKIA INDIA
PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
8. The objections raised by the respondent (assessee) to the notice
contending inter alia that since the impugned notice was based on
“change of the opinion” and hence bad in law was upheld by the ITAT
resulting in allowing the respondent’s appeal and further by dismissing
the Revenue’s appeal by the High Court. The Revenue has felt aggrieved
by the order of the High Court dismissing their appeal in limine and has
filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
9. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,
is whether the High 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.