Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
10. Now, what we have to see is whether in the present cases of the peti-tioners-assessees, it can be said that the WTO had reason to believe that the assessees had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for their net wealth. The assessees had originally filed their returns for the year 1968-69 in which the valuation of the ornaments and jewellery was based on the valuation report, dated September 7, 1968. That valuation was accepted by the WTO. The assessees repeated this valuation for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 with the necessary amendments on account of the change in the number of items. When the assessees had furnished this information along with the returns, they had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and had thus done their duty as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case [1961] 41 ITR 191 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437. They cannot be said to have in any way failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. If the assessing authority was not satisfied with the valuation disclosed by the assessees, he could have made an enquiry before the assessment was made. His failure to do so cannot shift the burden on the assessees. Later on, if on account of some other information, the WTO was of the opinion that the assessment was not correct and was an under-assessment, it only amounts to a change of his opinion but, on that basis, he cannot
proceed against the assessees under Section 17(1)(a). The fact that the assessees
had given a higher valuation of their total wealth for the year 1971-72 does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the estimate given by them for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 were incorrect or untrue. Apart from the valuation given by the assessees for the year 1971-72, there does not appear to be any basis on which the WTO could have reason to believe that the assessees had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts. A reference to the notice issued by the WTO on November 16, 1973, would bear this out. Again in the later notices, dated January 12, 1976, and January 19, 1976, also, the WTO does not refer to any such reason except stating that some audit objections were pending and there were directions by the higher authorities to get the jewellery revalued. The audit objection or the direction of the higher authorities for revaluation also cannot furnish any material on the basis of which the WTO can be said to have reason to believe that the assessees had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts.
Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976
10. Now, what we have to see is whether in the present cases of the peti-tioners-assessees, it can be said that the WTO had reason to believe that the assessees had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for their net wealth. The assessees had originally filed their returns for the year 1968-69 in which the valuation of the ornaments and jewellery was based on the valuation report, dated September 7, 1968. That valuation was accepted by the WTO. The assessees repeated this valuation for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 with the necessary amendments on account of the change in the number of items. When the assessees had furnished this information along with the returns, they had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and had thus done their duty as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case [1961] 41 ITR 191 and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437. They cannot be said to have in any way failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. If the assessing authority was not satisfied with the valuation disclosed by the assessees, he could have made an enquiry before the assessment was made. His failure to do so cannot shift the burden on the assessees. Later on, if on account of some other information, the WTO was of the opinion that the assessment was not correct and was an under-assessment, it only amounts to a change of his opinion but, on that basis, he cannot
proceed against the assessees under Section 17(1)(a). The fact that the assessees
had given a higher valuation of their total wealth for the year 1971-72 does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the estimate given by them for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 were incorrect or untrue. Apart from the valuation given by the assessees for the year 1971-72, there does not appear to be any basis on which the WTO could have reason to believe that the assessees had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts. A reference to the notice issued by the WTO on November 16, 1973, would bear this out. Again in the later notices, dated January 12, 1976, and January 19, 1976, also, the WTO does not refer to any such reason except stating that some audit objections were pending and there were directions by the higher authorities to get the jewellery revalued. The audit objection or the direction of the higher authorities for revaluation also cannot furnish any material on the basis of which the WTO can be said to have reason to believe that the assessees had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Gemini Leather Stores vs The Income Tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Agra ... on 1 May, 1975
" It was not disputed that prior to the assessment years in question the petitioner had disclosed the value of her lands on the basis of the report of the approved valuer and the same was accepted by the WTO. In the assessment years in question, therefore, she declared the same value, after making deductions due to sales of parts of the land. She, therefore, declared the value on the basis of her earlier valuation and had also disclosed the fact about sales of parcels of the land during previous years relevant to assessment years in question. If the WTO doubted the correctness of the valuation, it was open to the Department to get the same valued by its own valuer or to have recorded evidence about the real market value of the lands on the valuation date. Section 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act does not empower the Revenue to reopen the final assessment, even though by oversight, carelessness or inefficiency on the part of its officer, proper investigation was not carried out though all the primary facts which the assessee was required to place before him had been so placed. This is the considered view of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1. As the assessee had placed all the primary facts before the WTO for the assessment years in question with regard to the value of the agricultural land, there was no failure on her part which would entitle the WTO to take recourse to Section 17(IXa) of the Act for reopening the assessments. "
Income Tax Officer & Ors vs M/S. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., ... on 4 January, 1979
" It was not disputed that prior to the assessment years in question the petitioner had disclosed the value of her lands on the basis of the report of the approved valuer and the same was accepted by the WTO. In the assessment years in question, therefore, she declared the same value, after making deductions due to sales of parts of the land. She, therefore, declared the value on the basis of her earlier valuation and had also disclosed the fact about sales of parcels of the land during previous years relevant to assessment years in question. If the WTO doubted the correctness of the valuation, it was open to the Department to get the same valued by its own valuer or to have recorded evidence about the real market value of the lands on the valuation date. Section 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act does not empower the Revenue to reopen the final assessment, even though by oversight, carelessness or inefficiency on the part of its officer, proper investigation was not carried out though all the primary facts which the assessee was required to place before him had been so placed. This is the considered view of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1. As the assessee had placed all the primary facts before the WTO for the assessment years in question with regard to the value of the agricultural land, there was no failure on her part which would entitle the WTO to take recourse to Section 17(IXa) of the Act for reopening the assessments. "
Durga Sharan Udho Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 August, 1974
13. I am in respectful agreement with these views. In my opinion, these cases fully apply to the facts of the present cases because as already stated above, the assessees had disclosed all the items of jewellery and ornaments and had given their valuation on the basis of the approved valuer's report. They did not conceal any primary facts and it was not their fault if the WTO did not make a proper enquiry about the valuation before he made the assessments. The subsequent audit objections or even the directions of the higher authorities could only amount to some information on the basis of which the WTO may have changed his opinion but a mere change of opinion would not empower him to proceed under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act. He can get jurisdiction under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act only when the two conditions as already referred to above are fulfilled. Since the second condition, namely, that he must have reason to believe that underassessment is by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessees to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, is not fulfilled. Since the WTO had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 17, the petitioner is entitled to relief at the hands of this court.