TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (11) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transfer of assets to the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation in the original return and having shown the book value of the assets under 'loans and advances' in the balance-sheet without making adjustment in the accounts for the amount receivable could be said to have disclosed the primary facts during the original assessment for 1966-67? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that it was not possible for the assessee to disclose the amount receivable as compensation in the original assessment proceedings? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee not having disclosed the relevant particulars regarding transfer of assets such as motor cars, etc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act and if question No. 4 is answered against the Revenue, then the other questions become academic, and need not be answered. Therefore, first, we take up the principal issue covered under question No. 4 for our consideration. The facts relevant for the purpose herein are as follows: The assessee carrying on business of manufacture and sale of sugar was owning large agricultural lands with buildings appurtenant thereto at Tilak Nagar, Mumbai. The surplus lands held by the assessee were acquired by the State Government vide notification dated March 20, 1983, issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the said acquisition right up to the Supreme Court and ulti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s" on transfer of the agricultural assets. Challenging the said notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee filed a writ petition in this court, which was disposed of by directing the assessee to raise the issue about the validity of the reopening proceedings before the income-tax authorities. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee contended that the notice issued under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act was invalid as the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all the material facts for the purpose of assessment for the assessment year 1966-67 and there was no escapement of income due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts. The Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Act, 1961, and contended that mere production of books of account did not necessarily amount to disclosure of all material facts. He contended that the assessee had failed to disclose, that, apart from the agricultural land, other non-agricultural assets were also acquired by the State Government. According to the Revenue, capital gains tax was leviable on the compensation received by the assessee on the transfer of the said non-agricultural assets. Thus, in view of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose these facts, there was escapement of income and therefore, the reopening of the assessment was justified. Mr. Desai referred to the decisions of the apex court in the case of Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sets. In the "note" appended to the printed accounts, it was disclosed by the assessee that no adjustments were made in the accounts for the amounts receivable in respect of the transfer of certain fixed assets. All these materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of the original assessment. Moreover, the agreement dated April 29, 1965, arrived at by and between the assessee and the State Government, which gave details of the assets agreed to be transfer red by the assessee was also before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment. Apart from the above, the further finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that, during the original assessment, the assessee, at the instance of the Income-tax Officer, wrote....