Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.47 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Atul Jain [Along With Ita No. 1385 Of ... on 23 May, 2007 cites

Ganga Saran And Sons Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta vs Income Tax Officer & Ors on 23 April, 1981

14. At this stage, it is worth recalling that in Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Ors. , the Supreme Court noted that the expression "reason to believe" as occurring in Section 147 of the Act is stronger than the expression "is satisfied". In other words, mere satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for the issuance of a notice is not enough - there must be reasons on record which have led him to believe that a notice should be issued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 305 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Chhugamal Rajpal vs S. P. Chaliha & Ors on 21 January, 1971

10. For deciding whether the issuance of notice is vitiated or not, our attention has been drawn to Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha and Ors. . In that case, re-assessment proceedings were struck down by the Supreme Court on the ground that in the reasons recorded by him, the Income Tax Officer had vaguely referred to certain communications that he had received; he did not mention the facts contained in those communications except that from those communications "it appears that these persons (alleged creditors) are name lenders and the transactions are bogus"; he did not come to any prima facie conclusion that the referred transactions are not genuine; he appeared to have a vague feeling that the referred transactions may be bogus transactions and finally, his conclusion was to the effect that a proper investigation regarding the loans is necessary. The Supreme Court was of the view that the conclusion of the Income Tax Officer was that there is a case for investigating the truth of the alleged transactions but that is not the same thing as reasons for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act. In the decision of the Supreme Court also, when the matter was sent to the Commissioner, in the proforma against the question "Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under Section 148" he noted "Yes" and affixed his signatures. The Supreme Court was of the view that upon reading the report given by the Income Tax Officer (which is not the same as reasons for issuing a notice), the Commissioner could not have come to the conclusion on the material before him that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 350 - K S Hegde - Full Document

P. Munirathnam Chetty And P. ... vs Income-Tax Officer, C-Ward And Anr. on 10 August, 1973

In P. Munirathnam Chetty and P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer , the Andhra Pradesh High Court analyzed Chhugamal Rajpal and distinguished it on the ground that since the Income Tax Officer had given reasons for issuing a notice to the assessed, the mere fact that the Commissioner recorded "Yes" in respect of the question "Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under Section 148" would not by itself vitiate the proceedings. What follows from this is that if there are reasons recorded for issuing a notice and the Commissioner applies his mind to those reasons and even if he merely says "Yes" in respect of his satisfaction, that is good enough; but if reasons are not recorded by the Assessing Officer (as in Chhugamal Rajpal) then in any case the proceedings would be vitiated, and even if the Commissioner says "Yes" in the appropriate column, that would not save the notice from being vitiated.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1