Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (3.14 seconds)
Brig. B. Lall vs Wealth-Tax Officer, A-Ward And Anr. on 26 February, 1980 cites

S. Narayanappa & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 27 September, 1966

No such ground has been taken nor details have been given in the reply filed by the revenue in these cases and that being so, merely on the abstract proposition of law relied upon by Mr. Parakh in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) and Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. 1st Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC), it cannot be said that, in the instant cases, the assessee failed to bring to the notice of the WTO any portion of the documents submitted by her which were relevant or the particular items in them. After placing reliance upon the above proposition of law it was further necessary for the revenue to have shown it from the reply in the writ substantiated by the copies of the valuers' reports, that certain items from them were not pointed out to the WTO or that certain portions from them were not shown to the WTO in order to take advantage of the principles enunciated in the above cases for justifying the reopening of these cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 392 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

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

117. We have given very careful and thoughtful consideration to the various principles enunciated in the important judgments mentioned above. The relevant portions extracted above from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582, CIT v. Burlap Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609, Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603, Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437, Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 and of the Gujarat High Court in Poonjabhai Vanmalidas and Sons (HUF) v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 251, establish that once the assessee discloses the primary facts without concealing any material fact there cannot be any basis for the belief that the assessee has failed to disclose material facts truly and correctly resulting in wealth escaping assessment. If from the primary facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that the assessee should have drawn any particular inference and communicated it to the assessing authority. If any evidence can be discovered from the books and documents produced by the assessee which can be used against the assessee, the assessee is not under an obligation to inform the ITO about the possible inferences which can be raised against him. The omission or failure should be on the part of the assessee. The only obligation on the assessee was to place all the primary facts and once he places those primary facts, his obligation comes to an end. It is not for the assessee to put forward before the ITO a version contrary to the version that he was contending for. It is for the ITO to make all necessary enquiries and draw proper inferences. If it becomes a case of oversight it cannot be said that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. So far as the adequacy of the grounds is concerned, the court cannot investigate but the existence of such a belief can be challenged. The expression "reason to believe" does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. It can neither be a pretence merely to reopen the assessment and it must be held in good faith. If the assessing authority, relying upon the record, only makes a mistake the responsibility cannot be ascribed to an omission or failure on the part of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 350 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next