9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer to issue notices under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1981-82.
Analysis: The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notices under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1981-82. The petitioners had filed copies of loan accounts with confirmation letters during the original assessment proceedings, and the genuineness of the loans was accepted without further inquiry under section 143(3). Subsequently, information from a red copy/diary seized during a search in 1984 at another person's premises indicated the petitioners' involvement in bogus transactions. The Income-tax Officer formed a belief that the petitioners' income had escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of material facts. The issue revolved around whether the information from the red copy/diary had a direct nexus with the belief of income escapement, as required by section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. emphasizing the need for a rational connection or live link between the material and the belief of income escapement. It held that not every material, however vague, could justify reopening an assessment. In this case, the red copy/diary information was deemed vague and general, lacking a direct nexus with the loans taken by the petitioners. The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer did not have valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessments for the three years in question. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 were quashed, and the rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners with no order as to costs.
|
