9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and meaning of "disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment" u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of notice u/s 148 for reassessment. 3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in rectification proceedings u/s 154. 4. Time limit for issuing notice u/s 149(1)(a)(iii). Summary: 1. Scope and Meaning of Disclosure u/s 147: The court examined the ambit, scope, and meaning of the expression "disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment" as per section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the duty of the assessee is to disclose all primary facts necessary for assessment. It is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to draw inferences from these primary facts. The court cited several precedents, including *Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)*, to underline that the assessee's duty ends with the full and truthful disclosure of primary facts. 2. Validity of Notice u/s 148: The court scrutinized whether the notice issued u/s 148 was valid. The Revenue argued that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming excessive depreciation. However, the court found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment, including details of plant and machinery and their values. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer's failure to apply the correct rate of depreciation did not imply that the assessee had not disclosed material facts. Thus, the notice u/s 148 was quashed. 3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice u/s 154: The court noted that an order of rectification u/s 154 was passed without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, which violated the principles of natural justice. This order was annulled by the appellate authority, and the court upheld this annulment, emphasizing the necessity of providing an opportunity to the assessee before passing such orders. 4. Time Limit for Issuing Notice u/s 149(1)(a)(iii): The court examined the time limit for issuing a notice u/s 149(1)(a)(iii). The Revenue contended that the notice could be issued within sixteen years if the escaped income was more than one lakh rupees. The court, however, found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly, and therefore, the extended time limit did not apply. The court reiterated that the return filed by the assessee was complete and valid u/s 139, rejecting the Revenue's argument that the return was incomplete due to incorrect depreciation rates. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly, and the notice u/s 148 was without legal sanctity. The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the learned single judge.
|
