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 reassessment notices issued under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid when the assessee had disclosed the claim and supporting accounts but had not stated that the payee had rendered no services.
Analysis: The governing principle was that the assessee must disclose fully and truly all primary facts necessary for assessment, but is not bound to draw or supply the inference that the revenue authority itself must draw from those facts. Once the assessee placed before the assessing authority the claim for commission and the relevant books of account, the question whether the payment was allowable required investigation and inference by the Income-tax Officer. The omission to volunteer that the deduction was not admissible was not a failure to disclose material facts within the meaning of section 147(a).
Conclusion: The notices could not be sustained under section 147(a) and were invalid.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings founded on the impugned notices were quashed, and the writ application succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: For reopening under section 147(a), the revenue must show failure to disclose primary material facts; an assessee is not required to disclose the legal inference that those facts do not support the claimed deduction.