Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
7. We feel that the observations of the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decision clearly apply to the case at hand. Merely because
the Assessing Officer felt that the issue required „much deeper
scrutiny‟, is not ground enough for invoking Section 147. It is not
belief per se that is a pre-condition for invoking Section 147 of the said
Act but a belief founded on reasons. The expression used in Section
147 is - "If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe" and not - "If
the Assessing Officer believes". There must be some basis upon which
the belief can be built. It does not matter whether the belief is
ultimately proved right or wrong, but, there must be some material
upon which such a belief can be founded. In the present case, the
ITA 109/08 Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have
found as a fact that there was no material upon which the Assessing
Officer could have based his belief that income had escaped
assessment. The decisions cited by Mr Jolly, who appeared on behalf
of the revenue, namely, Income-tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband
Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd: 217 ITR 597, Raymond Woolen Mills Limited v.
Income-tax Officer and Others: 236 ITR 34 and Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt.
Ltd: 291 ITR 500 do not say anything different.
Chhugamal Rajpal vs S. P. Chaliha & Ors on 21 January, 1971
Consequently, the tribunal, after considering various
decisions, including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha & Others: 79 ITR 603 (SC),
dismissed the appeal of the revenue and affirmed the order passed by
the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) saying that the initiation of
ITA 109/08 Page 4 of 10
the proceedings under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section
148 were without jurisdiction and were illegal. The assessment framed
by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2002 was also annulled.
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007
7. We feel that the observations of the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decision clearly apply to the case at hand. Merely because
the Assessing Officer felt that the issue required „much deeper
scrutiny‟, is not ground enough for invoking Section 147. It is not
belief per se that is a pre-condition for invoking Section 147 of the said
Act but a belief founded on reasons. The expression used in Section
147 is - "If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe" and not - "If
the Assessing Officer believes". There must be some basis upon which
the belief can be built. It does not matter whether the belief is
ultimately proved right or wrong, but, there must be some material
upon which such a belief can be founded. In the present case, the
ITA 109/08 Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have
found as a fact that there was no material upon which the Assessing
Officer could have based his belief that income had escaped
assessment. The decisions cited by Mr Jolly, who appeared on behalf
of the revenue, namely, Income-tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband
Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd: 217 ITR 597, Raymond Woolen Mills Limited v.
Income-tax Officer and Others: 236 ITR 34 and Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt.
Ltd: 291 ITR 500 do not say anything different.
Income-Tax Officer, Calcutta vs M/S. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. ... on 29 March, 1995
7. We feel that the observations of the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decision clearly apply to the case at hand. Merely because
the Assessing Officer felt that the issue required „much deeper
scrutiny‟, is not ground enough for invoking Section 147. It is not
belief per se that is a pre-condition for invoking Section 147 of the said
Act but a belief founded on reasons. The expression used in Section
147 is - "If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe" and not - "If
the Assessing Officer believes". There must be some basis upon which
the belief can be built. It does not matter whether the belief is
ultimately proved right or wrong, but, there must be some material
upon which such a belief can be founded. In the present case, the
ITA 109/08 Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have
found as a fact that there was no material upon which the Assessing
Officer could have based his belief that income had escaped
assessment. The decisions cited by Mr Jolly, who appeared on behalf
of the revenue, namely, Income-tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband
Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd: 217 ITR 597, Raymond Woolen Mills Limited v.
Income-tax Officer and Others: 236 ITR 34 and Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt.
Ltd: 291 ITR 500 do not say anything different.
1