9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment could be reopened u/s 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61. Summary: Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment u/s 147(a) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court regarding the justification of reopening the assessment u/s 147(a) for the assessment year 1960-61. The original assessment was completed on December 20, 1961, and was sought to be reopened based on subsequent information that the assessee had concealed material facts regarding cash credits in the books of hundi loans from bogus parties. The assessee challenged the reopening, arguing that there was no omission or failure on his part to disclose all material facts during the original assessment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, and the subsequent confessional statements of the creditors constituted reasonable grounds for the ITO to believe that income had escaped assessment. At the hearing, the assessee's counsel argued that the ITO had no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to any omission or failure by the assessee. The counsel cited several decisions, including P. R. Mukherjee v. CIT, Gordon Woodroffe and Co. Ltd. v. ITO, and CIT v. Hemchandra Kar, to support the contention that the ITO's belief was not justified. The revenue's counsel argued that the subsequent information constituted sufficient material for the ITO to reopen the assessment and cited decisions like CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas and S. Narayanappa v. CIT to support the reopening. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal did not establish how the subsequent information had a nexus or relevant bearing on the formation of the ITO's belief. The Court found that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts within his knowledge during the original assessment, and it was impossible for the assessee to disclose the subsequent confessional statements of the creditors. The Court held that the ITO had no reasonable ground to believe that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts, and thus, the reopening of the assessment was not justified. The question referred was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
