Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007
"16. It would, thus, emerge that even in case of reopening
of an assessment which was previously accepted under
section 143(1) of the Act without scrutiny, the Assessing
Officer would have power to reopen the assessment,
provided he had some tangible material on the basis of
which he could form a reason to believe that income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. However, as held
by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd., (supra)
and several other decisions, such reason to believe need not
necessarily be a firm final decision of the Assessing Officer.
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
In case of Raymond Woollen Mills Limited v. Income
Tax Officer & Ors., reported in [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), the
Apex Court has held and observed as under :
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Central Provinces Manganese Ore. Co. ... vs I.T.O Nagpur on 20 August, 1991
"Section 147 authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to
assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax, if he has reason
to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped
assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to
believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing
Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that
income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be
read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally
ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. The
function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute
with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea
of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court
in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Limited v. ITO
[1991] ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a)
[as the provision stood at the relevant time] fulfillment of
the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At
that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not
relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is
required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact
of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the
only question is whether there was relevant material on
which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite
belief. Whether the materials would conclusively prove the
Page 9 of 11
C/SCA/20954/2017 ORDER
escapement is not the concern at that stage.
Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., ... vs Dy.Cit.,Circle-2(1)(1), , Ahmedabad on 24 May, 2017
It is undoubtedly true and settled through series of judgments
that reopening of the assessment cannot be made on mere
suspicion for fishing or roving inquiries. The term "reason to
believe" signifies entirely different meaning then "reason to
suspect." The Assessing Officer must have some tangible material
at his command to enable him to form a belief that income
Page 8 of 11
C/SCA/20954/2017 ORDER
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Nevertheless, the
concept of reason to believe cannot be equated with actual
additions being made or sustained which can be only within the
realm of assessment. The Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Jhaveri
Stock Brokers Prvt. Limited [Supra] in this context had made the
following observations :
Income-Tax Officer, 'G' Ward And Ors. vs Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. on 24 December, 1976
This is so
because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is
within the realm of subjective satisfaction [see ITO v.
Selected Dalurband Coal Company P Limited [1996 217 ITR
597 (SC); Raymond Woolen Mills Limited v. ITO [1999]
236 ITR 34 (SC)]."
Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs Income Tax Officer on 1 March, 2017
In this respect,
counsel relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Chintan Jadavbhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer,
reported in [2017] 246 Taxman 361 [Gujarat] in which the Court
Page 4 of 11
C/SCA/20954/2017 ORDER
was of the opinion that there was no tangible material available
with the Assessing Officer to even prima facie show that the
assessee had received any money in cash by way of sale
consideration of the land. The Court eventually quashed the notice
of reopening.
1