Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer, B-Ward And Anr. vs K.P. Varghese on 5 July, 1972
9. We shall deal with these matters before we take up the other matters arising under the Gift-tax Act. The question referred in Income-tax References Nos. 109 and 110 of 1983 has to be answered in favour of the assessee, in view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal justifying the invocation of Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act was based on the decision of this court in ITO v. K.P. Varghese [1973] 91ITR 49 [FB], which was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597. The Supreme Court held therein that Section 52(2) becomes applicable only when there is understatement of the consideration actually received and not otherwise, that is, if the full value of the consideration in respect of a transfer is shown at a figure less than that actually received by the assessee. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue. The sub-section has no application to an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly disclosed or declared by him. This being the law, we have to see whether the consideration received by the assessee was really more than what was declared as having been received from the K and K Trust. But we do not find any case for the Revenue that the actual amount of consideration received by the assessee from the K and K Trust was more than what was declared and disclosed in the returns (subject of course to the contention that the transaction between the assessee and the K and K Trust was sham, which we shall consider separately). If that be so, the provisions of Section 52(2) do not apply to this case, and the decision of the Tribunal applying Section 52(2) was unjustified. The answer to the question referred in Income-tax References Nos. 109 and 110 of 1993 has, therefore, to be against the Revenue.
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another vs Income-Tax Officer And Another on 13 July, 1993
19. So far as Income-tax Reference No. 189 of 1988 is concerned, the plea as stated above is that the Gift-tax Officer could not have entertained a reasonable belief about any gift having escaped assessment. It is true that the very foundation for the reopening of an assessment under Section 16(1)(a) is the existence of reasons to believe that a gift had escaped assessment by reason of the failure of an assessee either to make a return or otherwise. It is also true that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. As reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456, while the sufficiency of the reasons for forming the belief is not for the court to judge, it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. The case of the assessee before us is that the belief of the Gift-tax Officer was not a bona fide one.