Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.40 seconds)
Grahams Trading Co. (India) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Central And Ors. on 29 September, 1975
cites
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons vs First Additional Income-Tax ... on 27 October, 1966
25. Now, on the pleadings of the parties, the arguments as advanced and the determinations as mentioned hereinbefore, the first and foremost point or the moot point to be decided in this appeal is about the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the initiation of a proceeding under Section 147. If the assessee succeeds in proving before the officer concerned at the time of the hearing that the belief was not duly or properly formed or the belief which was formed could not be the belief of a reasonable man and in fact there is no material for the formation of any belief adverse to the assessee, then the proceeding would fail. It is true that where the jurisdiction of an administrative authority depends upon a preliminary finding of fact, the High Court will be entitled, in a proceeding for a writ, to determine upon its own independent judgment whether or not that finding is correct. But in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, as has been found in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Additional Income-tax Officer, to issue a notice under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922, the High Court is only concerned to decide if the conditions which invested the officer with powers to reopen the assessment, did exist or not. As has been held in that case it will not be within the province of the High Court to record a final decision about the failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts bearing on the assessment and consequent escapement of income from assessment and tax.
Kanji Ranchhod vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 7 October, 1965
The decision in the case of Kanji Ranchhod v. Commissioner of Income-tax, as has been contended by Mr. Pal, can no longer be good law in view of the subsequent Full Bench decision in the case of Poonjabhai Vanmalidas & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In the said Full Bench decision it has again been reiterated that it is not for the assessee to point out what possible inference could be drawn by the officer concerned making the original assessment at the time when the same was made. The only obligation on the assessee is to place all the primary facts before the Income-tax Officer. The assessee is under no obligation to instruct the officer concerned about the inference which is possible to be drawn on the question of bogus nature of the transaction.
S. Narayanappa & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 27 September, 1966
rises the issue of such a notice. It has also been held that the assessee does not discharge his duty to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment of the relevant year by merely producing the books of account or other evidence. He has to bring to the notice of the Income-tax Officer particular items in the books of account or portions of documents which are relevant. Even if it be assumed that from the books produced that the Income-tax Officer, if he had been circumspect, could have found out the truth, he is not on that ground precluded from exercising the power to assess income which has escaped assessment. On the facts of that case it was held further that the Income-tax Officer had, prima facie, reason to believe that the assessee had omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts and that in consequence of such non-disclosure income had escaped assessment; and he had, therefore, jurisdiction to issue the notices. It has further been held that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under Section 34(1)(a), the High Court is only concerned to decide whether the conditions which invest the Income-tax Officer with power to reopen the assessment did exist; it is not within the province of the High Court to record a final decision about the failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts bearing on the assessment and consequent escapement of income from assessment and tax. The above view has been expressed by the Supreme Court after quoting the findings and determinations in the case of S. Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax.