9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1993 (10) TMI 23 - HC - Income TaxAssessment Notice, Capital Gains, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Income Tax Act, Reassessment Notice, Supreme Court, Writ Petition
Issues: Assessment year 1978-79 capital gain disclosure, validity of notice under section 147(a), refund impact on capital gains computation, ex gratia payment treatment, duty to disclose relevant facts, self-evident question of law.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to the assessment year 1978-79 where the assessee disclosed a capital gain from the sale of a property in New Delhi. The property was sold for a total consideration, part of which was paid to the Land and Development Office and part invested in prescribed securities under section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed challenging the unearned increase. The Supreme Court directed a refund, and later, a notice under section 147(a) was issued to reopen the assessment. The Tribunal concluded that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing material facts, thus invalidating the action under section 147(a). The petitioner sought to refer questions to the High Court regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the refund was ex gratia and not to be considered for reducing capital gains. The Tribunal also noted that the Supreme Court's order settled the matter. The petitioner argued that the assessee had a duty to disclose all relevant facts, citing legal precedents. However, the High Court concurred with the Tribunal, stating that the primary facts were disclosed, and no question of law arose. The return had correctly stated the capital gains, and the writ petition for refund did not impact the assessment as the unearned increase had already been paid by the assessee. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court found no grounds for initiating proceedings under section 147(a) as the primary facts were disclosed. The judgment emphasized the self-evident nature of the issue and the lack of necessity for further legal scrutiny.
|
