Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Haji Abdul Gaffar vs Income-Tax Officer, "E"-Ward And Ors. on 25 June, 1984

Abdul Majid vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 24 February, 1989

22. Now, if we look at the valuation reports, we find that different modes have been adopted by the two valuers for measurement. The approved valuer has measured the plinth area of the ground floor at 183.48 sq. metres, equivalent to 1,975 sq. ft. whereas, according to the Departmental Valuer, the plinth area is 226.18 sq. metres. The approved valuer has further mentioned at page 5 of his report at item (i) a constructed portion of covered passage at the ground floor which is 510 sq. ft. As such, according to the approved valuer, the measurement of the ground floor of the constructed area would come to 2,485 sq. ft. whereas, according to the Departmental Valuer, it is 226.18 sq. metres, which is less than what has been shown by the approved valuer. This example itself shows that different modes may be adopted by different valuers and merely because one valuer takes a view different from that of the other valuer, it cannot be said that the assessees have not disclosed the material facts for the purposes of assessment fully and truly. It has been the consistent view of this court in Smt. Prabha Rajya Lakshmi v. WTO [1983] 144 ITR 180 (MP) ; Lokendra Singh Rathore v. WTO [1985] 153 ITR 466 (MP) and Haji Abdul Gaffar v. ITO [1985] 154 ITR 1 (MP) that once the assessee places the cost of his property, the source of the income along with the valuation report by an approved valuer, then it is for the assessing authority to take a decision based on the information so submitted and if such information is placed before the assessing authority, it will be deemed to be a disclosure of all the primary facts which an assessee is required to place before the authority truly and fully. If the assessing officer without getting it verified by the Departmental Valuer at the time of the assessment, accepts the return, then a subsequent opinion of a Departmental Valuer being different from that of the approved valuer, cannot form the basis for the reopening of the assessment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Dr. K. Rami Reddy on 21 July, 1993

My attention is drawn to the decision of the M.P. High Court in Haji Abdul Gaffar v. ITO [1985] 154 ITR 11. As per the headnote of the decision it is stated that two conditions are to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act in respect of assessments beyond the period of four years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year. These are as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Dr. K. Rami Reddy. (Dr. K. Rami Reddy V. ... on 21 July, 1993

My attention is drawn to the decision of the M. P. High Court in Haji Abdul Gaffar vs. ITO (1985) 154 ITR 1 (MP). As per the headnote of the decision it is stated that two conditions are to be satisfied before the ITO acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under S. 148 of the IT Act in respect of assessment beyond the period of four years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year. They are as follows :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sardar Kehar Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 8 November, 1990

Such a report by itself does not lead to a reasonable belief of concealment of income justifying action under Clause (a) of Section 147, nor does it constitute "information" justifying action under Clause (b) of the said section, (see Durga Sharan Udho Prasad v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 270 (Patna) ; Jawaharlal Daryavbuxmal v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 54 (MP); Haji Abdul Gaffar v. ITO [1985] 154 ITR 1 (MP); Tarawati Debi Agarwal v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 606 (Cal) ; Abdul Majid v. ITO [1989] 178 ITR 616 (MP); A. Shanmugham Chetty v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 331 (Mad) and Gulabrai Hanumanbux v. WTO [1989] 178 ITR 519 (Gauhati).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Arjun Singh And Anr. vs Assistant Director Of Income-Tax ... on 23 November, 1998

32. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the department has been taking shifting, inconsistent and oscillating stands, retracting its stand as regards the purpose of the intended revaluation of the house, which doubts the bona fides and fairness of the whole action, as at one place stand in regard to revaluation was to find out only additions and alterations made subsequent to April 1, 1987, and not to reopen the assessment In the reply filed on July 11, 1998, respondent No. 1 completely retracted the said stand stating" that it was intended to find out the cost of construction of the house as on March 31, 1987 which indicated for evaluation of the house afresh, in respect whereof exercise was already done during the course of the assessment proceedings. But the stand in the reply to the rejoinder affidavit reflects that the object was to find out "certain furnishing items" after March 31, 1987, which were not covered by the report of the approved valuer and from all this what comes out is that the assessment already made on the basis of the report of the valuer will be reopened though legally not permissible and in this context, reliance was placed in the case of Haji Abdul Gaffar v. ITO [1985] 154 ITR 1 (MP) where the court held that two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act in respect of an assessment beyond the period of four years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, i. e., (1) The Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (2) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee, (a) to make a return under Section 139 for the assessment year, or (b) to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment for that year. Reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment is the sine qua non for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Such a belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and the Income-tax Officer may act under the Section on direct or circumstantial evidence, but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. In the present case, facts and circumstances show that the position is so. Apart from this, it is worth noticing that nothing new has come out except manipulation and putting old wine in new bottles. It is a settled principle, including that of law, that the greater includes the smaller and if the revaluation of the house was to be done then, why it was not done within four years and the concerned person has failed to discharge its burden and has not acted in coming to reason to believe that of an honest man and reasonable person disclosing the fact the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment of that particular assessment year, i.e., 1987-88. The assessment having been completed after reference under Section 144A of the Act In the present case accepting the report of the valuer who in his valuation report submitted by the assessee in support of the return and thereafter a lapse of about ten years the valuation of the property, i.e., the house to be done through the valuation cell that too not on any new material or foundation qn the basis that some report is obtained from the patwari regarding income from agricultural properties when in the proceeding the report of the Tahsildar who is a superior class, i.e., Gazetted Officer, was relied on and accepted or obtaining of the affidavit of the same valuer after about ten years, who is under the thumb of the department making some deviation though no such material was supplied along with notice , under Section 148 or under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act to the petitioners. The position of law both under the Act and the Wealth-tax Act is merely the same as well as the context in the present case. The obtaining of the valuation report in respect of the house afresh about after about ten years from the valuation cell is ex facie not bonafide one even under the law. Such valuation report from the valuation cell cannot be taken into account for reopening of assessment. The case of Modi.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Prakash Chand vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 1 March, 2004

7. Coming to the facts of the case, when the assessment proceedings in respect of assessment year in question had already been completed then in such event, the AO had no jurisdiction to place reliance on the valuation report of valuation officer obtained subsequently and that too not obtained in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55A of the Act. In other words, the AO had no jurisdiction to re-open the concluded assessment under Section 148 of the Act on the strength of such valuation report, obtained after one year from the date of conclusion of assessments. The view that I have taken is also in accord with the view already taken by this Court in the case of Hazi Abdul Gaffar v. ITO, (1985) 154 ITR 1 (MP) and Abdul Majid v. ITO, (1989) 178 ITR 616 (MP).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1