1974 (10) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Company's non-disclosure absolved; Reassessment & penalty proceedings quashed.

The court concluded that the company did not fail to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, leading to the quashing of the reassessment ... Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings Issues Involved:1. Validity of reopening assessments under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Obligation of the assessee to disclose material facts in the return.3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings.4. Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reopening Assessments under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The company was initially assessed for the years 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53, where it was allowed initial and normal depreciation. However, in the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, and 1958-59, the depreciation allowances exceeded the original cost of the machinery, contrary to clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Notices were issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to reopen the assessments. The company contested these notices, arguing that there was no failure on its part to disclose material facts fully and truly.2. Obligation of the Assessee to Disclose Material Facts in the Return:The company argued that it had correctly filled in the return and disclosed all required information. The learned single judge agreed that the company had disclosed the written down value of the machinery correctly and that there was no column in the return requiring the disclosure of initial depreciation allowed in earlier years. The Supreme Court remanded the case to determine whether the company's omission or failure to disclose material facts led to income escaping assessment or excessive depreciation allowance.3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Initiate Reassessment Proceedings:The Supreme Court noted that section 34 of the Income-tax Act conferred jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice for reassessment if two conditions were met: (1) the officer had reason to believe that income had been under-assessed, and (2) the under-assessment occurred due to the assessee's omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Division Bench had not considered whether the income escaped assessment due to the company's failure to disclose material facts. Upon remand, it was found that the company had no obligation to disclose information not required by the prescribed form of return, and the Income-tax Officer had not asked for additional information.4. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The reassessment orders dated February 10, 1969, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the company's alleged wrongful claim of depreciation. The company challenged these proceedings, arguing that the reassessment itself was without jurisdiction. The court held that since the reassessment was without jurisdiction, the penalty proceedings consequential to it would also fail.Conclusion:The court concluded that there was no failure on the part of the company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. Consequently, the conditions for reopening the assessments under section 147(1)(a) did not exist, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The penalty proceedings initiated as a consequence of these reassessments were also quashed. The company was entitled to costs from the respondents in each of the six cases.