9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income which otherwise belonged to them. The petitioners' contention in the present petition before this court is that the complaint cannot proceed as the assessment for this year has already been quashed, and the ITO has still to make a fresh assessment. It is urged that it can only be known after the completion of fresh assessment whether any concealment or falsification has, in fact, been effected by the petitioners, and, therefore, they should be prosecuted for the offences for which they are now being proceeded against. Two returns were filed for the assessment year 1962-63. One was by W.L. Kohli in his status as individual, and the other was by a firm known as W.L. Kohli Co., of which W.L. Kohli and his son, the other petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Kohli that he had made certain gifts in favour of his son on which he had already paid gift-tax, and as such they provided enough capital with him to invest the same in the partnership.. These fresh assessments for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were made on June 4, 1969. Against these assessments, the CIT interfered under s. 263 of the I.T. Act observing that the orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ITO was required to make fresh assessments in the light of the observations made by him in his order dated August 7, 1981. Against this order of the CIT, the assessees moved the Income-tax Tribunal which reversed the order of the Commissioner on October 29, 1982. Thereby the fresh assessments made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of income which had earlier been confirmed by the Tribunal, was set aside. The Income-tax Department then moved a petition for reference under s. 256(1) which was rejected on February 13, 1981. At present, a petition under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act is pending in this court. With this background of the facts, Mr. Dalip Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the complaint cannot proceed any longer as the assessment has still to be finalised. Till that assessment takes place, it cannot be assumed that any concealment or falsity has been effected by the petitioners. In support he has placed reliance upon decisions reported as Jyoti Prakash Mitter v. Haramohan Chowdhury [1978] 112 ITR 384 (Cal), Uttam Chand v. ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Satpal contends, brings out a deliberate and determined endeavour by the petitioners to conceal a large chunk of their income. He also adds that the discovery of this large income was not only from what the petitioners had disclosed, but had resulted from the investigation and efforts made by the Income-tax Department. Mr. Dalip Singh, on behalf of the petitioners, however, states that the said offer was in the context of the settlement which was proposed to be arrived at. That settlement, however, was not accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax and, in the circumstances, it is urged that the offer or agreeing to be assessed at a particular income, should be treated as conditional and withdrawn. The crucial question to be consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
