Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction on the ground that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all primary facts necessary for the original assessment and that the conditions precedent under section 147 were not satisfied.
Analysis: The validity of reassessment depends on the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment because of the assessee's omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The duty of disclosure extends to primary facts, and mere production of account books or balance-sheets is not enough unless the impugned primary fact is specifically brought to the notice of the assessing officer. On the record, there was no satisfactory intrinsic or corroborative material to show that the specific cash transaction was disclosed in the original assessment proceedings, and the assessment records did not indicate that the disputed item had been explained to the earlier assessing officer.
Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was valid and within jurisdiction; the assessee failed to establish full and true disclosure of the relevant primary facts.