Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.55 seconds)Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 1 October, 1958
Turning now to the facts of the present case, it may be mentioned at the outset that it was conceded before us on behalf of the opposite party that the words "escaped assessment", as used in section 34 (1) (b) include cases in which there has been no assessment of a particular income owing to authority, although the return was duly filed by the assessee and there was no suppression of any facts by him. As held, however, by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, two conditions must be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer can act under section 34 (1) (b).
The Finance Act, 2018
The Finance Act, 1996
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar ... on 16 October, 1962
The question as to whether information referred to in section 34 (1) (b) can be derived by the Income-tax Officer himself from the materials available in the record of the original assessment proceeding without any extraneous information was left open by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. commissioner of Income-tax. The views of the Madras High Court as expressed in Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rathinasabapathi Mudaliar, of the Bombay High Court as expressed in Dr. M. R. Dalal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and of the Allahabad High Court as expressed in Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali v. Commissioner of Income-tax, are however, that such information can be obtained even from the record of the original proceeding itself and the Allahabad High Court has gone to the length of expressing that any knowledge acquired by the Income-tax Officer is "information" regardless of the source and manner of acquisition. Our attention was not drawn to any decision of the Patna High Court on this particular point. It is, however, not decide this particular question in the present case and it may only be pointed out that there may be various sources from which the Income-tax Officer may obtain the information, as referred to in section 34 (1) (b). It may also be added that if, at the time of the passing of the original assessment order, the Income-tax Officer had duly taken into consideration all the relevant materials including the relevant legal aspects, a subsequent change only in his view as to the inference to be drawn from those materials cannot be considered as subsequent information, as this will merely amount to a change of opinion.
M.R. Dalal (By His Legal ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 6 September, 1962
The question as to whether information referred to in section 34 (1) (b) can be derived by the Income-tax Officer himself from the materials available in the record of the original assessment proceeding without any extraneous information was left open by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. commissioner of Income-tax. The views of the Madras High Court as expressed in Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rathinasabapathi Mudaliar, of the Bombay High Court as expressed in Dr. M. R. Dalal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and of the Allahabad High Court as expressed in Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali v. Commissioner of Income-tax, are however, that such information can be obtained even from the record of the original proceeding itself and the Allahabad High Court has gone to the length of expressing that any knowledge acquired by the Income-tax Officer is "information" regardless of the source and manner of acquisition. Our attention was not drawn to any decision of the Patna High Court on this particular point. It is, however, not decide this particular question in the present case and it may only be pointed out that there may be various sources from which the Income-tax Officer may obtain the information, as referred to in section 34 (1) (b). It may also be added that if, at the time of the passing of the original assessment order, the Income-tax Officer had duly taken into consideration all the relevant materials including the relevant legal aspects, a subsequent change only in his view as to the inference to be drawn from those materials cannot be considered as subsequent information, as this will merely amount to a change of opinion.
Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 10 March, 1962
The question as to whether information referred to in section 34 (1) (b) can be derived by the Income-tax Officer himself from the materials available in the record of the original assessment proceeding without any extraneous information was left open by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. commissioner of Income-tax. The views of the Madras High Court as expressed in Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rathinasabapathi Mudaliar, of the Bombay High Court as expressed in Dr. M. R. Dalal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and of the Allahabad High Court as expressed in Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali v. Commissioner of Income-tax, are however, that such information can be obtained even from the record of the original proceeding itself and the Allahabad High Court has gone to the length of expressing that any knowledge acquired by the Income-tax Officer is "information" regardless of the source and manner of acquisition. Our attention was not drawn to any decision of the Patna High Court on this particular point. It is, however, not decide this particular question in the present case and it may only be pointed out that there may be various sources from which the Income-tax Officer may obtain the information, as referred to in section 34 (1) (b). It may also be added that if, at the time of the passing of the original assessment order, the Income-tax Officer had duly taken into consideration all the relevant materials including the relevant legal aspects, a subsequent change only in his view as to the inference to be drawn from those materials cannot be considered as subsequent information, as this will merely amount to a change of opinion.
Esthuri Aswathiah vs The Income-Tax Officer, Mysore State on 5 December, 1960
The contention of the assessee is that the order as to the case being filed does not imply that the proceeding was terminated and in the absence of any specific order terminating the proceeding and accepting the income as nil, what is meant or intended by an order for filing a case has evidently to be determined with reference to all the attendant facts and circumstances in which the order was passed. As pointed out in the appellate order of the Tribunal, a similar point arose in the case of Esthuri Aswathiah v. Income-tax Officer, in which the Income-tax Officer had passed an order "No proceeding" and it was held by the Supreme Court that such an order in the circumstances of the case meant that the Income-tax Officer accepted the return and assessed the income as "nil".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Bidhu Bhushan Sarkar (Dead) Through His ... on 3 October, 1966
In another case, namely, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar, an order passed by an Additional Income-tax Officer to the effect that the case is filed came up for consideration and it was held by the Supreme Court that one the facts of the case the intention of the Additional Income-tax Officer could have, in making the order that the case be filed, been that the proceedings should no longer remain in existence as being unnecessary and he clearly intended that they should be terminated as dropped and, in the circumstances, the word "filed" has to be interpreted as equivalent to "disposed of". In the present case, it is evident from what has been stated above that the Income-tax Officer had accepted the contention of the assessee that his income was nil and had thereon passed the aforesaid order to the effect that the assessee had no business income or income from property during the year and hence he directed the case to be filed. In view of these attendant facts and circumstances, there cannot be the least doubt that the order regarding filing of the case is really tantamount to an order disposing of the proceeding on the finding that the income was nil as contended by the assessee, hence, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal on the above point cannot be upheld and the Tribunal has evidently erred in holding that the reassessment of the aforesaid years were invalid on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had passed no order of reassessment on the original returns. It may be added that it was contended by Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad that, on the basis of the question referred to, it is not open to this court to consider whether the original order as passed by the Income-tax Officer amounts to an order terminating the proceeding and assessing the income as nil and the court has to proceed on the basis that the Income-tax Officer had passed no order of assessment on the original returns. He drew our attention to the fact that there is some difference in the question as framed by the Tribunal and the question which the department had suggested in its petition before the Tribunal for reference to the court. It appears that in the petition the prayer of the department was for framing a question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the recording of the case "filed" did not amount to assessment as "nil". The question as framed by the Tribunal, no doubt, is somewhat different from that suggested by the department but on constructing the entire question as framed and referred to by the Tribunal, there is no scope for the contention that the court is to proceed on the basis that the Income-tax Officer had passed no orders of assessment on the original return. The finding of the Tribunal was that the reassessment proceedings were invalid on the ground that no order of assessment had been passed by the Income-tax Officer and the question for determination by this court is whether this finding was justified and, as such, the correctness of the ground on which the finding was justified and, as such, the reference as made by the Tribunal. As such, there is no merit in the above contention raised by Shri Rajeshwari Prasad. In view of the above findings, the aforesaid point of reference is answered in the negative, and it is held that the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer actually amounted to orders terminating the proceeding on the finding that the income was nil and the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the reassessments were invalid. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative.