Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Family Of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 15 February, 1962

Income-Tax Officer vs First Leasing Co. Of India Ltd. on 8 May, 1985

Respectfully following the principles enunciated by the Madras High Court in the case of Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar (supra) which has been followed by the Calcutta High Court, the initiation of proceedings for reopening the assessment in the present case having been valid at the time the notice under Section 148 dated 24-4-1982 was served on the assessee on 1-3-1982, subsequent events in the form of the decision of the Tribunal rendered on 31-7-1983 did not render the initiation void and, therefore, it was not necessary for the ITO to stop short and not proceed to the finalisation of the assessment. The question of his staying his hands from bringing to tax the extra depreciation allowance or investment allowance or other items, which he considered was wrongly allowed, on merits, did not arise at this stage because there was no decision by the Tribunal on merits on this aspect in its order dated 31-7-1982. The cross-objection would, therefore, fall to be dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 45 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Narayana Investment Trust (P.) Ltd. on 28 December, 1984

8. The department relied upon the following decisions in support of the position that even if the materials, on which the original assessment was reopened subsequently, turned out to be non-existent, they will still be information if, at the time of the reopening, the ITO in good faith believed that there was information justifying the reopening of the assessment, viz., Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 314 (Mad.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Travancore Cements Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 September, 2006

7. Sri P.K. Raveendranatha Menon, Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that reasons for reopening the assessment were communicated to the assessee as per letter dated 17.10.2005, consequently requirement of Section 148 has been satisfied. Counsel submitted that under the amended provisions of Section 147 with effect from 1.4.1999, the assessing officer can assess or reassess income which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment and can assess or reassess any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice subsequently in the course of the proceeding. Counsel submitted that notice under Section 143(2) was issued calling upon the assessee to produce evidence in support of the return when the assessing officer needs to ensure that there is no understatement of income. Notice under Section 142(1) was issued to produce document as the assessing authority may require for the purpose of making the assessment. Counsel submitted that whether assessment was completed under Section 143(1) or under Section 143(3) is of no moment for initiating reassessment under Section 147. Counsel submitted that once the proceeding were validly initiated by issuing notice under Section 148 after recording reasons assessing authority has jurisdiction to assess or reassess any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. C.I.T. (1963) 48 ITR 314 pertaining to proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922. Counsel submitted that the non issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) does not in any way affect the power of the assessing officer to issue notice under Section 148. Counsel submitted that non existence of the original ground which led the officer to believe that income had escaped is not a bar to reassessment of escaped income and does not vitiate such reassessment. Counsel submitted that the statutory requirement of reasonable belief rooted in information in the possession of the officer is a safeguard the assessee from vexatious proceedings and is not a mantle of protection against taxation of income found to have escaped assessment. Counsel submitted that in determining the question of escaped assessment the assessing officer has to satisfy that there were enough materials on the basis of which authority can reopen the case and the correctness or otherwise of the same has to be considered by the court.
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 20 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nem Kumar Jain Ratan Kumar And Ors. on 26 September, 1979

Such view was taken by the Madras High Court in Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 314 (Mad) and CIT v. Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar [1964] 51 ITR 204, by the Kerala High Court in United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 and Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503, and by the Punjab High Court in Kulbushan and Brij Bhushan v. CED [1973] 88 ITR 65 and CIT v. Yash Pal Mehra and Co. [1977] 109 ITR 742.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mooljee Sicka And Co. vs Second Addl. Income-Tax Officer, Dist. ... on 5 March, 1964

In Family of Sankaralinga Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held (at p. 322) that "information" and "reasonable belief" constitute the essential requisite and basic foundation to set in motion the machinery of re-assessment under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act...... While complete absence of information might knock the bottom out of the jurisdiction of the Officer, so long as there is some information in his possession upon which a belief of escapement of assessment could be said to be not unreasonably entertained, the jurisdiction is well founded.....The Income-tax Officer may rightly commence Section 34 proceedings, if he has in consequence of particular information in his possession, reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and may, even if that particular information proves to be ill founded at the conclusion of the enquiry yet bring to tax such escaped income as comes to light as a result of the enquiry."
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs T.C. Dolwani on 22 November, 1976

The Tribunal observed that it was bound to follow the Nagpur and Bombay decision in preference to the said Madras decision and similarly an earlier decision of the very same High Court, viz., Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 48 ITR 314 (Mad), where the view of section 34(1)(b) different from that taken by the Nagpur and the Bombay High Courts had been taken. According to the Tribunal, on the facts of this case, it could not be said that this was a matter where there was a manifest error but a case where the applicability of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) had to be considered - a matter on which two opinions were possible. To arrive at that conclusions the Tribunal went in detail through the history of the assessments in the case of the assessee as we as of the firm of Standard Garage and held that the 1st Income-tax Officer, who reopened the assessment, was only acting on the basis of a change of opinion and not on the basis of fresh information.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 August, 1972

13. V. A. M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1963] 48 I.T.R. 314 (Mad.) is a case where a notice has been issued for reassessment under Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the ground that a certain item of income had escaped assessment. At the time of the reassessment proceedings it was however found that the particular information which gave rise to his belief that income has escaped assessment proved to be ill-founded but there were other items of escaped income which did not come to light earlier. The question was whether the Income-tax Officer had the power to bring to charge such other items of escaped income. This court ruled that the non-existence of the original ground which led the officer to believe that income had escaped assessment is not a bar to reassessment of escaped income which came to light as a result of the enquiry and that such reassessment will not be vitiated on the ground that the original ground on which the proceedings were intitiated did not survive, and that the statutory requirement of reasonable belief rooted in information in the possession of the officer is only to safeguard the assessee from vexatious proceedings and is not a mantle of protection against taxation of income found to have escaped assessment.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 24 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Dinesh Chandra H. Shah And Ors. on 27 August, 1971

3. It may be mentioned that the decisions relating to Section 34(1)(b) are a legion and it may seem that divergent views have been expressed in some of the cases in the light of their peculiar facts. The Revenue has contended for the proposition which was accepted by the Madras High Court in Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1963) 48 ITR 314 (Mad) that although a mere change of opinion regarding the chargeability of income on the part of the reassessing Officer different from his own previous opinion or that of his predecessor in Office might not justify action under Section 34(1)(b) but Income which escapes assessment as a result of the lack of vigilance of the Income-tax Officer or due to inadvertence or negligence or due to perfunctory performance of his duties without due care and caution could well be within the ambit of Section 34(1)(b) provided the requirements of that section are satisfied. In other words even if the assessee has placed the entire facts which would enable the Income-tax Officer to make a proper assessment of his income but he fails to do so for the various reasons stated earlier he can, as soon as he realizes his mistake, issue a notice under Section 34(1)(b) after completing the assessment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 78 - A N Grover - Full Document
1   2 Next