Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta [Along With Ita No. ... on 30 November, 2006 cites

M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another vs Income-Tax Officer And Another on 13 July, 1993

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at great length, we are of the view that the Order of the ITAT is unassailable. In this case, the assessment had not been completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. There are banking transactions between the assesseds and Shri Anand Prakash and, therefore, initiation of reassessment Proceedings under Sections 147/148 may be impregnable even to the charge of legitimacy of invocation of Sections 147/148. In other words, since there were banking transactions between these persons, and Shri Anand Prakash had, in fact, deposed that he had provided bogus transactions to the Assesses that would constitute reasons for the AO to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment justifying action under Sections 147/148. Shri Anand Prakash cannot be seen as a busybody or an informer or a stock witness wholly unconnected with the assessed concerned. Learned Counsel for the Revenue had drawn our attention to Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-Tax Officer where the ITO had learnt that the party from whom that assessed had allegedly borrowed Rs. 50,000/- in cash had not actually done so. Information pertaining to the false nature of these transactions was exchanged between the respective Income-Tax Officers. Their Lordships opined that - "Acquiring fresh information, specific in nature and reliable in character, relating to a concluded assessment which went to expose the falsity of the statement made by the assessed at the time of the original assessment was different from drawing a fresh inference from the same facts and material available with the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment proceedings". This decision, however, does not empower the AO to rely only on the deposition of a third party in order to upset the Return filed by an assessed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 508 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1