| Case ID |
02e69e3f-5250-4fe8-9036-7c52ce19cc61 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL DECREE No. 834 OF 1974 |
| Decision Date |
May 25, 1977 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of the revenue, affirming the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) right to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the ITO had reasonable grounds to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment based on scrutiny of records indicating that the hundi loans previously accepted as genuine were in fact bogus. The court determined that the Additional Commissioner had the authority to grant permission for the issuance of notice under section 148, and that the ITO's belief was not merely a change of opinion but based on new findings regarding the nature of the loans. The judgment of the trial judge was set aside, emphasizing the importance of complete and truthful disclosure of material facts by the assessee. |
| Summary |
In the case of Income Tax Officer v. Mahadeo Lal Tulsyan, the Calcutta High Court addressed crucial aspects of tax law, specifically the provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. This case revolved around the reopening of an assessment for the financial year 1962-63. The Income Tax Officer discovered that the hundi loans previously accepted as genuine were, upon further investigation, found to be not genuine. The court examined the legal implications of section 147, which allows for reassessment if income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court ruled that the ITO's actions were justified and that the Additional Commissioner had the authority to permit the issuance of a notice under section 148. This case is significant for practitioners in tax law, as it underscores the necessity for complete transparency and accuracy in financial disclosures by taxpayers to avoid reassessment and potential penalties. It also highlights the legal framework governing the reassessment process and the importance of judicial oversight in tax matters. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M.M. Dutt,
Sharma
|
| Lawyers |
N.L. Pal,
S.N. Dutt,
Meghnath Banerjee,
M.M. Mullick
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Mahadeo Lal Tulsyan
|
| Citations |
1978 SLD 456,
(1978) 111 ITR 25
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Chidambaram Chettiar [1971] 80 ITR 467 (SC),
CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC),
Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO [1958] 34 ITR 275 (SC),
Malegaon Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 (SC),
Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC),
ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC),
Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC),
CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),
CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC),
Bhadarmal Hazarimal v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 159 (Gau.),
ITO v. Mahadeo Lal Tulsian [1977] 110 ITR 786 (Cal.),
Mahadeo Lal Tulsyan v. ITO [1977] 110 ITR 637
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147,
148,
151(2)
|