| Case ID |
0370d61d-036d-4a47-8106-80acbb62a06e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 23 OF 1970 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 26, 1971 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessments under section 147(b) based on information obtained from an external source, specifically a scrutiny note from the revenue audit department. The Court clarified that although the ITO's change of opinion may have seemed like a mere reconsideration of the same facts, it was actually prompted by new information that justified reopening the assessments. The Tribunal's earlier decision to dismiss the revenue's appeals was overturned, establishing that the scrutiny note and the letter from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner constituted valid information under the Income-tax Act, warranting reassessment. |
| Summary |
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. H.H. Smt. Chand Kanwarji, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of income escaping assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around whether the ITO could reopen assessments based on a scrutiny note from the revenue audit department. The Court found that the ITO had acted on information from an external source, thereby justifying the reassessment. This case highlights the importance of external audit findings in tax assessments and the legal thresholds for reopening cases based on new information. The decision emphasizes the balance between a taxpayer's right to finality in assessments and the revenue's interest in correcting errors that may impact tax liabilities. It sets a precedent for future cases involving reassessments based on audit scrutiny, illustrating the dynamic nature of tax law interpretation and enforcement. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
HARDAYAL HARDY,
M.R.A. ANSARI
|
| Lawyers |
G.C. Sharma,
B.R. Dhawan,
Randhir Chawla,
V. Kumaria,
A.P. Singh
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of INCOME TAX
|
| Respondents |
H.H. Smt. Chand Kanwarji
|
| Citations |
1972 SLD 356,
(1972) 84 ITR 584
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC),
Assistant Controller of Estate Duty v. Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur [1969] 72 ITR 376 (SC),
Ramkrishna Ramnath v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 995 (Bom.),
CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. [1969] 74 ITR 107 (Cal.),
Delhi Glass Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 95 (Delhi),
Jawahar Lal Mani Ram v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 837 (All.),
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC),
R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 74 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147
|