9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of reopening assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee disclosed fully and truly all material necessary for assessment, thus making the reassessment under section 147(a) unjustified. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Reopening Assessment under Section 147(a): The court examined whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of assessment under section 147(a) was not justified. The relevant assessment years were 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had initially based the assessments on the trading account and profit and loss accounts filed by the assessee without the balance-sheets, as they were not drawn up. The ITO later issued a notice under section 148, believing that the income returned was understated compared to the assessee's assets and holdings, leading to reassessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The AAC noted that the ITO had previously rejected the books of account for earlier years due to non-production of balance-sheets but did not call for balance-sheets for the years under consideration. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing that the ITO had the power to request the balance-sheet under section 142(1)(ii) but did not do so, indicating that the primary facts were disclosed. 2. Full and True Disclosure of Material Facts: The court analyzed the meaning of "material facts" necessary for assessment. According to the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, the duty of the assessee is to disclose primary facts necessary for assessment. The assessee is not required to instruct the ITO on the inferences to be drawn from these facts. In this case, the assessee did not prepare balance-sheets, which were not attached to the returns. The court noted that under Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and Form No. 2, the balance-sheet must be attached if prepared. Since the balance-sheets were not prepared, the court concluded that there was no non-disclosure of material facts. The court also referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in ITO v. Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd., which held that non-disclosure implies the existence of material facts. If the balance-sheet was not prepared, it could not be disclosed. The ITO had the power to request the preparation of the balance-sheet under section 142(1)(ii) but did not exercise this power, indicating that the balance-sheet was not deemed necessary for assessment. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Tribunal and the AAC were justified in holding that the ITO was not justified in resorting to section 147(a) for reopening the assessment. The assessee had disclosed all primary facts necessary for assessment, and the ITO's failure to request the balance-sheet indicated that it was not a material fact. Thus, the reassessment under section 147(a) was not justified. The court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no costs.
|
