Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sri Har Sarup Cold Storage And General ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 27 May, 1988
For the proposition that without rejecting the account books maintained by the assessee in which the cost of construction was duly noted the reference by the Valuation Officer to estimate the cost of construction was under bad under law was also sought to be supported by the Full Bench decision of the Delhi Bench in Sri Har Sarup Cold Storage & General Mills vs. ITO (supra). I feel is not necessary to specifically discuss either the facts or the ratio since it accords with the ratio of other decisions already stated on behalf of the assessee in his regard.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh ... on 11 March, 1992
Thus there is an admission on the part of the Revenue that the whole of cost of construction was evidenced by 100% vouchers and it is contended that without questioning the genuineness or the completeness of the accounts maintained by the assessee to reveal the cost of construction, the ITO cannot refer the question of valuation to the Valuation Cell. For this propose he relied on the latest decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh & Deepak Kumar (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj). The facts of the case appear to be similar to facts on hand, since the question in that case was how much investment was made on a property and out of the said investment made how much should be taken to be the income from undisclosed sources. In the facts of the case some additions and alterations were made to the building belonging to the assessee. The question relates to determination of aggregate amount spent in those additions and alterations. The assessee maintained proper books of account and the expenditure incurred was fully supported by vouchers. Without rejecting the books, a reference was made to the Valuation Cell and on the suggested value by the Cell, addition was made. The question is whether such addition towards income from other source is sustainable. The additions were deleted by the Tribunal. The matter was taken to the High Court in reference. The facts as well as the relevant decision with which are concerned are succinctly stated in the headnote at page 789 which are as under :
Income-Tax Officer vs S. Krishna Iyer, P.A. Venkataraman, C. ... on 23 April, 1982
6. For the proposition that when all the material facts were already mentioned in the original return with the help of which the assessee can satisfactorily compute the total income, there assessment under S. 147(A) cannot be sustained on the ground that the full value of the property constructed was not disclosed in the return. The assessee had produced before me the decision of the Madras Bench B reported as Third ITO vs. S. Balasubramaniam (1980) 9 TTJ (Mad) 158. The facts of that case are that the original assessment was completed S. 143(1)(a) without any scrutiny of there turn. The assessee had constructed a building at a total cost of Rs. 31,990. Five months after compilation of the original assessment, the ITO obtained information from his Inspectors report that the cost of construction disclosed by the assessee in the return is understated, and so the ITO instead of resorting to either S. 143(2)(b) or 147(b), resorted to reopening under S. 147(a) of the IT Act. The question was whether such reopening is valid under law. The Tribunal held the following at page 159 para 2 of its order :
Income Tax Officer & Ors vs M/S. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., ... on 4 January, 1979
Applying the supreme Courts decision in ITO vs. Madnani Engg. Works. Ltd. (1978) 118 ITR 1 (SC), it is further held by the Tribunal that it was for the ITO to investigate correct. The assessee could not have been said to have failed to make a true and full disclosure of the materials just because the figure disclosed by the assessee did not coincide with the figure estimated by the ITO. Therefore, it is argued that simply because the estimated cost of construction made by the Departmental Valuer exceeded the cost of construction disclosed by the assessee as per his account books and vouchers, it cannot be said that the cost difference between the book value and the value as per the Departmental Valuer is not disclosed it amounts to suppression of material facts which justifies reopening under S. 147(a).
Fourth Income-Tax Officer vs S.M. Shafiq Trustee Of Karimia Trust And ... on 5 March, 1993
The non disclosure of the factum of construction an investment made does not constitute material fact for purposes of S. 147(a) when no income accrued from investment made in construction, was also sought to be justified citing the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal reported as ITO vs. S. M. Saraf (1984) 20 TTJ (JP) 159, photocopy of which is furnished at pages 55 to 59. It is held in that decision that facts which enabled the ITO to make investigation cannot also he to be material facts within the meaning of S. 147(a). It is further held that report of the valuer cannot constitute material fact for making the assessment. Therefore, reopening the assessment for not disclosing the factum of construction and investment made in return or for not filing a report of valuer was not justified. The facts before the Tribunal in brief are the following. The original assessment for 1972-73 and 1973-74 were completed on 7th Sept., 1974 and 18th March, 1976. Property income from self-occupied property was shown for the period from May, 1972 when the house was completed upto Dewali 1972, when the asst. yr. 1973-74 ended at Rs. 600 which was accepted by the ITO. In the original assessment order for 1972-73 was stated that the property was constructed during the period from July 1971 to May 1972, the property was having fine marble fitting with tiles and bathrooms. Cost of construction was shown at Rs. 1,32,000 for which details were furnished. No valuation certificate was furnished by the assessee in support of the cost of construction. Since it is a technical matter and since the cost of construction exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, the matter was referred to the Valuation Cell and if any variation is found suitable will be taken under S. 147(a) separately. The Departmental Valuer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,69,500. The difference between the disclosed cost and the value adopted by the Departmental Valuer was felt to be income which had escaped assessment and ITO initiated reassessment proceedings for both the years, namely, 1972-73 and 1973-74. In appeal, the AAC reversed the order of the ITO.
K.C.P. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 June, 1990
Thereupon an appeal was filed by the Department and cross objection was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal, following the A. P. High Courts decision in K. C. P. Ltd. vs. ITO (1984) 146 ITR 284 (AP) held the following :
Haji Abdul Gaffar vs Income-Tax Officer, "E"-Ward And Ors. on 25 June, 1984
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 :