Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (8) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner-firm was assessed at Rs. 20,690 by an assessment order as contained in annexure-5 in a proceeding under section 143(3) read with section 182 of the Act as it was then in existence. At the time the petitioner-firm had certain claims pending against Bharat Coking Coal Limited for which it had undertaken construction of some quarters under a contract. According to the case of the petitioner although the construction work was completed and information in that regard was given to the concerned officials of BCCL neither any payment was made for the works done nor were any final bills prepared till March 18, 1978. As no final bills were prepared for the works done by the petitioner, including the extra work done due to change of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng to Rs. 1,61,363.29 which was duly shown by the petitioner in the return of its income for the assessment year 1987-88. It was while dealing with the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 (sic) that the income-tax authorities made enquiries about the aforesaid interest amount and came to learn about the title suit filed by the petitioner in which the court had given it a decree for the amount as mentioned above. The Income-tax Officer then issued notice to the petitioner on February 20, 1998, asking it to show cause why a proceeding under section 147 should not be taken for the assessment year 1979-80 on the presumption that income during that assessment year had escaped assessment. The petitioner in his reply to thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a brief order, dated May 1, 1996. The Supreme Court set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which interest was denied to the petitioner and held that the petitioner would be entitled to interest for the period which was allowed by the trial court. Following the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad, for releasing the bank guarantee furnished by it for withdrawal of the decretal amount. Thereupon, the Subordinate judge by order dated May 11, 1992, directed the Manager, Bank of India, Hirapur Branch, to release the amount of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. It is further important to note that the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 199 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e ingredients of the proviso to section 147 were, therefore, completely absent and the issuance of the notice under section 148 was quite unwarranted. Mr. Moitra further stated that the impugned notice was issued after eight years on the basis of an approval obtained from the Commissioner of Income-tax in terms of the provisions of section 151 after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989. Learned counsel pointed out that section 151(1) before its amendment and as it stood at the material time provided that no notice would be issued under section 148 after the expiry of eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Board was satisfied on the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer that it was a fit case for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lf of the Revenue, it is stated that since the petitioner was maintaining mercantile system of accounting, it should have disclosed the value of work done at Rs. 13,48,945 (which according to the petitioner was the total value of the work done by it) instead of Rs. 35,000 and, therefore, the petitioner-firm had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and had failed to disclose income to the tune of Rs. 13,13,945 (after deducting Rs. 35,000 which was the only amount shown by the petitioner). According to the Revenue, the petitioner, therefore, failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and concealed its income to the tune of Rs. 13,13,945. The Revenue overlooks the fact that at that time the amoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates