9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction to reopen assessment under section 16(1) of the Gift Tax Act for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent, GTO, to reopen the assessment under section 16(1) of the Gift Tax Act for the relevant assessment years. The main contention was that the GTO did not have the grounds necessary to initiate the reassessment. The court noted that section 16(1) of the Act is similar to section 147 of the Income Tax Act and requires specific conditions to be met for reopening assessments. The GTO must have a reason to believe that taxable gifts have escaped assessment due to the assessee's omission or failure to disclose material facts. Additionally, the GTO can act based on information in his possession indicating escaped gifts. The court emphasized the importance of these prerequisites for the GTO to acquire jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the GTO lacked jurisdiction as the assessment orders for the relevant years had already been finalized based on returns filed under section 13 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the gifts made were disclosed in the returns, and the GTO had already made determinations on them. The court examined the assessment orders and found that the GTO had disallowed certain gifts claimed by the petitioner, treating them as not genuine gifts. The court observed that the GTO's opinion that the gifts were not taxable did not amount to under-assessment or assessment at too low a rate, as the GTO had already made a decision on the matter. Referring to relevant case law, the court highlighted that a change of opinion based on subsequent events does not confer jurisdiction to reopen assessments. The court emphasized that all gifts relevant to the assessment years were disclosed in the returns and had been dealt with by the GTO, except for one item. Therefore, the court concluded that the Revenue had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the petitioner for the years in question. The court quashed the notices issued by the GTO, ruling them as without jurisdiction. In conclusion, the court held that the impugned notices were invalid and ordered them to be quashed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the matter.
|
