TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 rules against tax authorities in reassessment case, emphasizes duty to disclose facts</h1> The court held that the notices issued by the ITO/WTO for reopening assessments were without jurisdiction as the petitioner had disclosed all material ... Reassessment Issues involved: 1. Validity of notices issued by ITO/WTO for reopening assessments under s. 148 of the I.T. Act and s. 17 of the W.T. Act. 2. Jurisdiction of ITO/WTO to initiate reassessment proceedings. Judgment Summary: The petitioner, an income-tax and wealth-tax assessee, owned agricultural lands acquired by the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. Compensation was awarded and interest was determined by the District judge. The High Court later reduced the compensation amount and awarded interest. The petitioner, during the litigation, did not receive any interest from the State Government. The ITO/WTO issued notices for reopening assessments, alleging income and wealth had escaped assessment. The petitioner challenged the validity of these notices, arguing full disclosure was made in the returns. The respondents claimed inadequate disclosure by the petitioner. The ITO's reasons for reopening assessments included interest on compensation not yet paid. The court found the petitioner had disclosed all material facts, and the ITO was aware of the pending interest issue. Citing legal precedents, the court held the actions of the ITO/WTO were without jurisdiction. The notices for reopening assessments were quashed, and costs were awarded to the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the duty of the assessee to disclose all facts relevant to the assessment. It highlighted that when primary facts were already before the ITO, reopening assessments based on oversight was not permissible. The court noted the petitioner's clear disclosure regarding the disputed interest on compensation in the returns. This transparency precluded the ITO/WTO from invoking provisions for reassessment. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notices and ordering the refund of the security deposit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
