Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... on 12 February, 1957
Shri K.K. Viswanatham, contended that even on a ground which was not taken up or discussed by the first appellate authority, the order of the first appellate authority can be supported and sustained by the respondent in an appeal. This proposition was also supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 844 in which Chief Justice Chagla had observed at page 855 as follows:
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
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 Income-tax Officer cannot refer the question of valuation to the Valuation Cell. For this proposition he relied on the latest decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CITv. Pratapsingh Amrosingh, Rqjendra Singh and Deepak Kumar [1993] 200 ITR 788. The facts of that case appear to be similar to the 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 that 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 surces' 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 we 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 Section 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' in Third ITO v. S. Balasubramaniam [19.80] 9 TTJ 158. The facts of that case are that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(l)(a) without any scrutiny of the return. The assessee had constructed a building at a total cost of Rs. 31,990. Five months after completion of the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer obtained information from his Inspector's report that the cost of construction disclosed by the assessee in the return is understated, and so the Income-tax Officer instead of resorting to either Section 143(2)(b) or 147(b), resorted to re-opening under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. The question was whether such re-opening 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 Court's decision in ITO v. Madnani Engg. Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 11, it is further held by the Tribunal that it was for the Income-tax Officer to investigate correct cost. 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 Income-tax Officer. Therefore, it is argued that simply because the estimated cost of contruction 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 re-opening under Section 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 and investment made does not constitute material fact for purposes of Section 147(a) when no income accrued from investment made in construction, was also sought to be justified by citing the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. S.M. Saraf [1984] 20 TTJ (JP.) 159, a photo copy of which is furnished at pages 55 to 59. It is held in that decision that facts which enabled the Income-tax Officer to make investigation cannot also be said to be material facts within the meaning of Section 147(a). It is further held that report of the Valuer cannot constitute material fact for making the assessment. Therefore, re-opening the assessment for not disclosing the factum of construction and investment made in return or for not filing a report of valuer was justified. The facts before the Tribunal in brief are the following. The original assessment for 1972-73 and 1973-74 were completed on 7-9-1974 and 18-3-1976. Property income from self-occupied property was shown for the period from May 1972 when the house was completed upto Diwali 1972 when the assessment year 1973-74 ended at Rs.600 which was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. In the original assessment order for 1972-73 it was stated that the property was constructed during the period from July 1971 to May 1972, the property was having fine marble fittings 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 action will be taken under Section 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 the Income-tax Officer initiated re-assessment proceedings for both the years namely 1972-73 and 1973-74. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed the order of the Income-tax Officer.
K.C.P. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 June, 1990
In K.C.P. Ltd.'s case (supra) the A.P. High Court explained as to what are material facts within the meaning of Section 148 of the Act. Their Lordship held that every material fact which has got a bearing on the assessment for that assessment year must be disclosed by the assessee. What is the material fact is a question of fact which has to be decided in each case and it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule. The building constructed by the assessee was for his residential purpose and unless he is obliged to disclose the income derived therefrom the fact firstly that he had been constructing a house and if so its value would not constitute material facts. In the facts and circumstances, what are the requirements for re-opening assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 ?
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 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:
Smt. Tarawati Debi Agarwal vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986
In the facts of the case before me also by the departmental valuer's report only the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that income escaped assessment. Now according to the M.P. High Court decision, the valuation report cannot be made the sole basis for re-opening the assessment under Section 148. So the re-opening is bad under law. This argument is sought to be reinforced by the Calcutta High Court's decision in Smt Tarawati Debi Agarwal v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 6061. The Calcutta High Court held the following as per the headnote of that decision at page 606: