TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds reassessment notice under Income-tax Act, emphasizing rational belief and timely completion</h1> <h3>Aditya Mills Limited Versus Union Of India And Others</h3> Aditya Mills Limited Versus Union Of India And Others - [1995] 214 ITR 669 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notice under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Requirement of recording reasons under Section 148.3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in issuing the notice.4. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.5. Full and true disclosure of material facts by the assessee.6. Application of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO.7. Sufficiency and reasonableness of the Income-tax Officer's belief.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notice under Section 147:The petitioner challenged the notice dated April 22, 1978, under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that no reason had been recorded as required under Section 148, making the reasons arbitrary, illusory, and fanciful. The petitioner contended that the commission paid to its sole-selling agent was disclosed in the balance-sheet submitted during the assessment proceedings, and such payments had been consistently allowed from 1969-70 to 1975-76. Therefore, the notice was claimed to be without jurisdiction.2. Requirement of Recording Reasons under Section 148:The court emphasized that the reasons for the Income-tax Officer's belief must be recorded to ensure there was material in possession to form such an opinion. The reasons must be in good faith and reasonable, not a mere pretence or subjective satisfaction.3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer:The court referenced a Division Bench decision which found that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice dated April 22, 1978, as the assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The Division Bench observed that the Income-tax Officer had examined witnesses and was satisfied after full investigation, indicating it was a case of change of opinion, not a valid ground for reassessment.4. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition:An objection was raised regarding the writ petition being filed on September 29, 1982, challenging the notice dated April 22, 1978, indicating it suffered from laches and delay. The court noted the delay and found no reasonable explanation for the four-year gap in filing the writ petition.5. Full and True Disclosure of Material Facts by the Assessee:The court discussed the necessity of disclosing primary facts relevant to the assessment. It referenced the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, where it was held that once the assessee disclosed primary facts, their duty ended, and it was up to the assessing authority to draw proper conclusions. The court found that the statements of P. D. Podar and R. K. Pareek, recorded after the original assessment, constituted fresh information indicating non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee.6. Application of the Law Laid Down by the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO:The court noted that the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO held that an Income-tax Officer could reopen an assessment if specific, reliable, and relevant information came into possession subsequently, indicating that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of material facts. The court found that the Division Bench's view was contrary to this law, as fresh information had come to light exposing the untruthfulness of the facts previously disclosed.7. Sufficiency and Reasonableness of the Income-tax Officer's Belief:The court emphasized that the belief of the Income-tax Officer must have a rational connection and a live link to the material on record. The court found that the statements of P. D. Podar and R. K. Pareek provided specific information exposing the falsity of the petitioner's claims, justifying the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a).Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the basic conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 147(a) existed, and the Division Bench's view was contrary to the Supreme Court's law in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal. The court directed the Income-tax Officer to complete the proceedings within three months, giving due opportunity to the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
