Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.51 seconds)Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Messrs Chatturam Horilram Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar And ... on 18 April, 1955
The point was, however, specifically taken in appeals against the two orders under section 34 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It was urged that the basis of action taken by the successor under section 34 was merely a change of opinion on the same facts and as such reassessment under section 34 was not valid or justified. The Tribunal, by a consolidated order dated December 31, 1958, rejected the contention holding that section 34 as amended by the Act of 1948, applied to the case and the powers given to the Income-tax Officer under the amended provision were wider than the powers which the Income-tax Officer possessed before the amendment. The amended provision only required that the Income-tax Officer should have information in his possession in consequence of which he should have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The information was not confined to factual material but included also information as to the state of the law, e.g., where the Income-tax Officer making the original assessment had overlooked a material provision of the Act. Accordingly, purporting to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Chatturam Horilram Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax they held that the Income-tax èOfficer had information in his possession within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) that his predecessor had overlooked the correct import of section 4(3)(i) and the action under section 34 was, therefore, justified.
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commercial Structures Ltd. vs R. A. Briggs. on 16 November, 1948
The Supreme Court observed that this statement of the law by Rowlatt J. was overruled by the Court of Appeal in Commercial Structures Limited v. R.A. Briggs. It would follow that when under the unamended provision in section 34 information had to be "definite" and the word "discovers" also occurred in the section and accordingly, the requirement of the section was more rigorous than the requirement of the section since the amendment in 1948. It would appear to be the view of the Supreme Court that the section might include also the case of the change of opinion on the same facts and figures. Though the Supreme Court did not express a final opinion and specifically left the question open at page 14 they observed that divergent view have been expressed by the High Courts whether it would be open to the Income-tax Officer to taken action under section 34 on the ground that he thinks that his original decision in making the order of assessment was wrong without any fresh information from an external source or whether the successor of the Income-tax Officer can act under section 34 on the ground that the order of assessment passed by his predecessor was erroneous. Then they referred to the suggestion of counsel for the department that under the provisions of section 34 as amended in 1948 it would be open to the Income-tax Officer to act under the said èsection even if he merely changed his mind without any information from an external source and came to the conclusion that in particular case he had erroneously allowed an assessees income to escape assessment. The Supreme Court left the question open by observin :
Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd vs P. J. Sterling And Others on 15 May, 1959
In other words the view of the Supreme Court is that by reason of the word "discovers" occurring in the section prior to 1948 the requirement of that section was more rigorous than it is from 1948 when the word "discovers" was omitted from that provision and substituted by the words "has reason to believe". It may also be pointed out that the words in the section prior to 1948 were "definite information" and not "information" simpliciter as they occur in the section since 1948. It is clear from this also that whereas under the section prior to 1948 a qualified kind of information alone was within the section since 1948 "information" under the section is not limited by any qualification. Under the English Act in which also the word "discovers" occurred in the paralel provision it was held in Anderton and Halstead Ltd. v. Birrell, by Rowlatt J. that the word "discovers" in section 125 of the English Act does not include a mere change of opinion on the same facts and figures upon the same question of accountancy being a question of information.
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 1 October, 1958
The question is whether the omission to notice or apply the relevant statutory provision on the part of a predecessor and of which a successor becomes aware can be said to be "information in the possession of the successor Income-tax Officer" and whether it can be said that it is "in consequence of such information" that the Income-tax Officer "has reason to believe" that income profits or gains chargeable to income-tax "have escaped assessment" or "have been under-assessed". It must now be taken to be settled law under the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that the word "information" in section 34(1)(b) includes not merely factual information but also information as to èthe true and correct state of the law and information as to a relevant judicial decision. That case also lays down that "escape" in section 34(1)(b) is not confined to cases where no return has been submitted by the assessee or where income had not been assessed owing to inadvertence or oversight or other lacuna attributable to the assessing authorities. Even in case where return has been submitted, if the Income-tax Officer had inadvertently failed to tax a part of the assessable income, it was a case where that part of the income had escaped assessment. The Supreme Court further laid down that for the applicability of section 34(1)(b) two conditions have to be satisfie :
Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 14 December, 1960
Indeed in Salem Provident Fund Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax the Madras High Court held that information may be acquired by an officer "information himself" from a re-examination, it is not necessary to go so far as that. Here information was acquired by the successor and as such the information was clearly extraneous to the information possessed by the predecessor Income-tax Officer. As already stated above, the Supreme Court, even though they did not decide whether revision of information is permissible as a source of information under section 34, did not overrule the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the department and from entire reading of their decision they appear to have been half inclined to hold that change of opinion also would be within the section. Here, however, as already stated above, it is not a case of a mere change of opinion but a case of knowledge of an omission regarding a statutory provision by the predecessor acquired by his successor subsequently in point of time to the making of assessment order. It follows that the proceedings taken in this case were perfectly valid. The two questions should, therefore, be answered as follow :
1