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

1982 (11) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also called upon the petitioner to file the revised returns for those assessment years for the purpose of bringing to tax the escaped gifts. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court under art. 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, contending that the respondent, GTO, had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under s. 16(1) of the Act as none of the ingredients required for such reopening of the assessment is to be found in the case of the petitioner for the aforementioned assessment years. For expeditious disposal of these petitions, this court issued notice to the respondent, GTO, calling upon him to show cause why Rule should not be issued. In response to the same, the respondent has entered appearance and it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t requisites for assuming jurisdiction under that section is that the GTO should have reason to believe that the assessee had omitted or failed to make the return under s. 13 of the Act in respect Of gifts made by him or any other person in respect of which the assessee is liable under the Act in any assessment year, or when the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the gifts made by him or such other person for the relevant year (or when) any taxable gift of his escaped assessment for that year, whether that be by reason of under-assessment, assessment at too low a rate or otherwise. The other instance which confers jurisdiction on the GTO under s. 16(1) of the Act to take action .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessment years, 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively. He has further contended that as is evidenced by the assessment orders of the GTO aforementioned, the gift disclosed and in respect of which exemption had been claimed under s. 5 of the Act, on one or the other ground, was rejected by the GTO while only one item was accepted as a gift made in the year 1975-76 and that gift was in fact subjected to tax. Therefore, he has argued that even the transfer of properties made to his wife in payment of dower was in fact disclosed, at the time of assessment, to the GTO and he did not accept that transfer to be a genuine transfer made in consideration of payment of dower to his wife and in that circumstance with reference to whatever may have happe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment year 1974-75, is the fact that the exemption claimed was disallowed by the GTO holding them not to be gifts at a 11. In the result, no demand notice was issued. In the case of assessment year 1975-76 while all the gifts were not held to be gifts, one gift alone was recognised in the value of Rs. 26,000 and that was subjected to tax. In that circumstance it is evident from annexs. D and D-1 that the respondent formed the opinion that the gifts disclosed were not gifts at all and, therefore, did not bring them to tax, except the one mentioned in respect of the assessment year 1975-76. Now, forming such an opinion does not amount to either under-assessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise. The GTO evidently formed an opinion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the light of subsequent event will not confer jurisdiction upon the officer to reopen the assessment as a mistake apparent on the face of the records either of law or of fact. In the light of the facts which I have discussed above, all the gifts referable to in the relevant assessment years have been disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee and they have not been treated as gifts by the GTO except in respect of one item in the assessment year 1975-76. Having formed that opinion and passed the order which the assessee had accepted, it cannot now be said that it is a case for reopening under s. 16(1) of the Act. It is unnecessary on the facts of these cases to rely upon the decision of this court in the case of First ITO v. A. Y. Pandu .....

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