9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Summary: 1. Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner, a body corporate incorporated in the USA carrying on banking business in India, filed a petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the notice dated March 27, 2000, issued by respondent No. 1 u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice alleged that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1991-92 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue filed an affidavit-in-reply pointing out the reasons for reopening the assessment and stated that the statutory requirements were complied with in issuing the said notice. 2. Whether there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment: The petitioner contended that there was no omission or failure on their part to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. They argued that all primary facts were disclosed in the return, and the Income-tax Officer's failure to investigate further cannot be equated with the assessee's failure to disclose. The court noted that the reasons for reopening the assessment showed that the petitioner-bank under the Portfolio Management Scheme (PMS) received money from various customers, including Grasim Industries Ltd., and treated PMS accounts as fixed deposits, violating RBI guidelines. The petitioner paid a fixed interest rate of 18% to Grasim Industries Ltd. and retained an amount of Rs.40,23,45,387 earned in excess, which was not disclosed. The court referred to various judgments, including Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO, Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO, and CIT v. Mangilal Dhanraj, cited by the petitioner's counsel, but found them inapplicable. Instead, the court relied on the apex court's judgment in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO and Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. and Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that mere production of evidence before the Income-tax Officer was not enough and that there could be a failure to disclose material facts if some material for the assessment lay embedded in the evidence which the Revenue could have uncovered but did not. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to disclose the primary facts, particularly the oral understanding with Grasim Industries Ltd., under which only 18% interest was paid, and the income earned over and above was not disclosed in the return. The court held that the notice was rightly issued and required no interference u/s 226 of the Constitution. Petition rejected.
|
