1979 (9) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the assessment of income that has escaped assessment and the extent of the ITO's authority to revise or reopen the entire original assessment.

Judgment Details:

Assessment Year 1956-57:
The assessee, a joint Hindu family firm, derived income from mica mines. After the death of the karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), the son was substituted in his place. The assessee was assessed ex parte under section 23(4) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, due to non-compliance with notices. Subsequent appeals led to a reduction in total income and allowance of losses from earlier years.

Reassessment under Section 147(a):
The ITO initiated proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee had purchased a house in his wife's name, leading to alleged escaped assessment of income. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, deleted an addition made by the ITO, restoring the total income determined in a previous order. The assessee sought a reference to the High Court on the ITO's jurisdiction under section 147.

Legal Interpretations:
The High Court analyzed the language of section 147, emphasizing that the ITO's jurisdiction is limited to assessing income that has escaped assessment and does not extend to revising the entire assessment. Precedents such as Kevaldas Ranchhodas v. CIT and Sir Shadi Lal and Sons v. CIT were cited to support this interpretation. The Court also referred to a Supreme Court case, V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT/EPT, which highlighted the ITO's duty to levy tax on all income that had escaped assessment during reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed that the ITO's jurisdiction under section 147 is confined to assessing income that has escaped assessment and does not allow for revising or reopening the entire assessment. The Court answered the question referred to them in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision. No costs were awarded in this matter.