Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
6. The reopening of the assessment in the present case is
admittedly within a period of four years of the end of the relevant
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:51:33 :::
PNP 6 WP2471-17.10.sxw
Assessment Years, 2005-06 and 2006-07. When the reopening takes
place within a period of four years of the relevant Assessment Year,
the powers of the Assessing Officer are substantially wider than when
a reopening is beyond a period of four years. Nonetheless, the power
to reopen an assessment cannot be exercised arbitrarily even within a
period of four years, for the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not confer
upon the Assessing Officer a power to review an assessment once
made. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening of
assessment, but where the Assessing Officer can demonstrate that
there was tangible material on the basis of which he had formed the
belief that income had escaped assessment, that would furnish
jurisdiction to him to reopen assessment. The law on the subject has
been formulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.1 thus :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Amin'S Pathology Laboratory vs P.N. Prasad, Joint Commissioner Of ... on 17 September, 2001
In a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Amin's
Pathology Laboratory v. P.N. Prasa, Joint Commissioner of Income
Tax2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia ( as the learned Chief Justice
of India then was) speaking for a Division Bench of this Court had
emphasised that a reason to believe that income has escaped
assessment has to be the reason of a prudent person. Consequently, if
as a result of information received by the Assessing Officer, he comes
to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment that would
constitute a valid foundation for a notice under Section 148. The
Division Bench observed as follows :
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
The Court can consider as to whether there was a prima facie case
for reassessment. The sufficiency of the material cannot be
considered ( Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer4 )
For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the Petitions. Both
the Petitions shall stand dismissed.
1