1973 (7) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Lump sum received by an employee on termination of employment was originally exempted as capital receipt - Later on a Commission of Enquiry appointed to enquire into the affairs of the company found that the contract of employment was not genuine - whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1950-51 under section 147(a) - whether such initiation of proceedings is justified having regard to the conditions precedent to be fulfilled before the provisions of the said section can be attracted - notice for initiation of reassessment proceedings will have to be upheld in so far as it relates to the item of Rs. 7 lakhs paid by the company to the petitioner - In the result the petition is dismissed. As however made clear earlier the Income-tax Officer will not be entitled in the conduct of the ment proceedings to go into the question of the loan of Rs. 2 lakhs given by the assessee to V. G Pettie and the interest thereon as forming of the assessment during the relevant assessment year

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1950-51.
3. Validity of the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as taxable income.
4. Validity of the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and interest as taxable income.
5. Compliance with conditions precedent for invoking Section 147(a).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Initiate Proceedings under Section 147(a):
The primary issue was whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reopening the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the officer must have reason to believe that there was an omission or failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, and (2) the officer must have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

2. Justification for Reopening the Assessment for the Assessment Year 1950-51:
The reopening was based on the findings of the Vivian Bose Enquiry Commission, which concluded that the letter of appointment dated October 11, 1943, was forged and antedated. The Income-tax Officer believed that this non-disclosure of material facts justified the reopening of the assessment.

3. Validity of the Sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs as Taxable Income:
The initial assessment considered the Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation for loss of employment, not taxable income. However, the Vivian Bose Enquiry Commission found that the letter of appointment was fraudulent, suggesting that the Rs. 7 lakhs was not genuinely compensation for loss of employment but rather a device to evade tax. The court upheld the Income-tax Officer's belief that the sum could be taxable income, thus justifying the reassessment.

4. Validity of the Sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs and Interest as Taxable Income:
The court found that the Rs. 2 lakhs and the interest thereon could not be considered as income for the relevant accounting year. The sum was related to a suit filed before the accounting period, and it was not included in the report submitted by the Income-tax Officer for obtaining the Central Board of Direct Taxes' sanction. Consequently, the notice for reassessment regarding this amount was quashed.

5. Compliance with Conditions Precedent for Invoking Section 147(a):
The court referred to the principles established in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that there was a non-disclosure of material facts. The court found that the findings of the Vivian Bose Enquiry Commission provided sufficient grounds for the Income-tax Officer to entertain a reasonable belief that there had been non-disclosure, thus fulfilling the conditions precedent for invoking Section 147(a).

Conclusion:
The court upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147(a) concerning the Rs. 7 lakhs but quashed the part of the notice related to the Rs. 2 lakhs and the interest thereon. The petition was dismissed, with costs taxed on a long cause scale.

← Previous Next →