9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reopening of income-tax assessments under section 147(a) and 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved an individual assessee and his wife, who were partners in a firm. The controversy arose when the Income-tax Officer sought to reopen the income-tax assessments for the years 1968-69 to 1970-71, alleging non-disclosure of primary facts by the assessee. The main contention was whether the reopening of assessments was justified under section 147(a) or 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer included the share income of the assessee's wife in his total income but did not include the interest income received by her from the firm. The assessee had disclosed both types of income in the returns, stating that the interest income was not included based on a previous Tribunal decision. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that all primary facts were disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, and no new information was relied upon by the Income-tax Officer for reopening. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing that the assessee had fully disclosed all necessary facts during the original assessments. The court concurred with this view, stating that there was no justification for reopening the assessments under either section 147(a) or 147(b) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer failed to provide any new information or grounds that would warrant the reassessment. Conclusively, the court answered all three questions posed by the Revenue in the affirmative, ruling against the Revenue. The assessments were deemed unjustified under both sections 147(a) and 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the reassessments made by the Income-tax Officer were canceled, and the reference was answered with no order as to costs.
|
