9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Reopening of assessments under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on alleged failure to disclose material facts.
Summary: The High Court of Bombay delivered a judgment concerning income-tax assessments for the years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67. The assessments were initially conducted under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee provided details of purchases exceeding Rs. 10,000, including transactions with specific firms. Subsequently, a statement by an individual alleged that these firms were not genuine trading concerns but were involved in havalas. This led to the Income-tax Officer reopening the assessments under section 147(a) and issuing notices for the three years, resulting in reassessments adding the value of purchases from the mentioned firms. Upon appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the purchases were duly reflected in the trading results and relevant books were produced, concluding there was no failure to disclose material facts. However, the Tribunal members had differing opinions, with the Judicial Member siding with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Accountant Member supporting the reopening of assessments under section 147(a). The matter was referred to a third member, the Vice-President of the Western Zone, who agreed with the Judicial Member that the reopening was not valid. The Tribunal then posed a question to the High Court regarding the disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment and reassessment under section 147(a) for the years in question. The High Court analyzed the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case and concluded that even though the purchases were disclosed, the falsity of the transactions came to light later, justifying the reopening of assessments under section 147(a). The Court emphasized the importance of specific, reliable, and relevant information for reassessment and upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in this case. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in favor of the Revenue, stating that the condition precedent for exercising jurisdiction under section 147(a) was fulfilled, without delving into the merits of the reassessments.
|
