Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 25 February, 2004
As Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed, in
the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), the reasons should provide link between evidence
and the conclusion. The evidence is that the figures of professional receipts as per TDS
certificates and as shown in the profit and loss account vary, but then this does not lead to
the conclusion that the income has escaped assessment. As a matter of fact, as we will see in
paragraph 15 of this order a little later, on the same date and vide identical reasons
recorded, the Assessing Officer has also reopened the assessment for subsequent assessment
year as well, in which professional income as per profit and loss account was far more than
the aggregate of figure of payments as per tax deduction at source certificates. It is thus the
difference per se and not the professional income as per profit and loss account being less
than the figure as per tax deduction at source certificates which is proximate cause of
reopening the assessment. In any event, the difference between receipt and income is too
significant to be ignored. There may be need to verify but that mere need to verify does not
bring the matter within the scope of cases in which reassessment proceedings can be validly
initiated. What is needed, to successfully invoke the reassessment proceedings, is the reasons
to believe that income has escaped assessment. No doubt, even a prima facie reason for
believing that income has escaped assessment is sufficient to invoke the reassessment
proceedings, but there is a subtle, though significant, distinction between reasons to believe
and reasons to suspect. While the former is good enough to hold that income has escaped
assessment and initiate suitable remedial measures in respect thereof, the latter can at best
be the ground enough to verify and examine the matter further. The mere fact that matter
needs to verified and deserves to examined further can, in our humble understanding, never
be a reason good enough to believe, even if it is a good reason to suspect so, that income has
escaped assessment, and therefore, a reason good enough to invoke the reassessment
5
ITA No. 1952/Kol/2013
Assessment Year: 2008-09
Swapan Kumar Mondal
proceedings. An Assessing Officer may have a hunch that here is a case in which some
income may have escaped assessment but that hunch or suspicion, howsoever legitimate,
cannot be a reason to "believe" that income has escaped assessment. The condition
precedent for invoking section 147 is, thus, far from satisfied. In this view of the matter, in
our considered view, the very initiation of reassessment proceedings on the facts of this case
was devoid of legally sustainable merits. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings.
As the reassessment proceeding itself is quashed, we see no need to deal with the matter on
merits and dismiss the related grievances, raised by the assessee on merits of the case, as
infructuous."
Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. V. Lakhmani
Mewal Das reported 103 ITR 437 (SC), held as follows:-
Ganga Saran And Sons Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta vs Income Tax Officer & Ors on 23 April, 1981
6. Applying the propositions laid down in these case-law to the facts of this case, we
uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A), from para 4.2. to para 4.4 at pages 8 to 13 of his
order.
Section 34 in Sai University Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Prashant S. Joshi vs The Income-Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4 on 22 February, 2010
"9. We have taken due note of the fact that the original assessment proceedings were
completed under section 143(1) of the Act and that the reassessment proceedings are
initiated within four years but that does not, as is the settled legal position, does not imply,
as has been indirectly suggested by the learned Departmental Representative, that
assessment proceedings can be revisited even in the absence of legally sustainable reasons
for formation of prima facie belief that income has escaped assessment. In other words,
irrespective of whether or not the original assessment has been completed under scrutiny
assessment or summary assessment, it is necessary that conditions precedent for invoking
section 147 have to be satisfied. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Prashant S Joshi
v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxman 1 had an occasion to deal with this question and
also consider the scope of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Asstt. CIT v.
Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 in this regard.
After elaborately considering Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock
Brokes (P.)