9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reopening of assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on failure to disclose capital gains on the sale of shares. Analysis: The case involves a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee sold 1,000 shares of a company to a trust but did not initially report the capital gains in her income tax return. The Income-tax Officer later reopened the assessment under section 147(a) upon discovering the undisclosed capital gains. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, stating no fresh facts justified reassessment. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing the duty to disclose capital gains in the income tax return regardless of disclosures in wealth tax returns. The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified, leading to a reference to the High Court. The High Court considered the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147(a) and not the validity of reassessment or computation of capital gains. The court noted the failure of the assessee to disclose the sale of shares and capital gains in the original return, leading to an escapement of income. The Tribunal's finding of non-disclosure by the assessee was upheld, emphasizing the duty to disclose all primary facts for assessment. The court rejected the argument that disclosure in wealth tax returns absolved the duty to disclose in income tax returns, as the relevant fact of the sale of shares must be disclosed under the Income-tax Act. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the reopening of assessment under section 147(a) was justified based on the failure to disclose primary facts related to the sale of shares and capital gains. The court concluded that the assessee's omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment resulted in an escapement of income. Therefore, the question of law regarding the reopening of assessment was answered in the affirmative in favor of the Revenue. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, and no costs were awarded.
|
