| Case ID |
1f41e720-9551-44c3-af8d-f0279888193a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
F.M.A. No. 391 OF 1971 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 29, 1975 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Officer to reopen the assessments for the years 1950-51 to 1961-62 based on the failure of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The court emphasized that the Income Tax Officer had reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment due to the non-disclosure of significant documents and dealings with a non-resident company. The court ruled that the obligation to disclose all material facts lies with the assessee, and failure to do so justifies reassessment. Furthermore, the court stated that the reasons for reopening the assessment need not be communicated to the assessee beforehand. The decision confirmed the validity of the notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and reinforced the principles governing reassessment proceedings. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning income escaping assessment. The Calcutta High Court examined whether the Income Tax Officer had sufficient grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the failure of Grahams Trading Co. (India) Ltd. to disclose material facts. The court found that the company had not properly accounted for income earned from its dealings on behalf of a non-resident company and had failed to disclose a 'Note' from its Chartered Accountants in its balance sheets. The ruling highlights the importance of full and truthful disclosure of material facts by the assessee during assessment proceedings and clarifies the conditions under which the Income Tax Officer can initiate reassessment. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, affirming the reassessment notices issued by the Income Tax Officer. This case serves as a key precedent in income tax law, emphasizing the obligations of taxpayers in disclosing relevant financial information. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
M.N. Roy,
S.K. Mukherjea
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. D. Pal,
P.K. Pal,
Miss Monisha Seal,
B.L. Pal,
N.L. Pal
|
| Petitioners |
Grahams Trading Co. (India) Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1976 SLD 585 = (1976) 105 ITR 1
|
| Other Citations |
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sardar D.K. Yadav AIR 1968 SC 1186,
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC),
Fateh Chand Jairam Dass v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 226 (Punj.),
ITO v. Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. [1974] 97 ITR 55 (Cal),
Kanji Ranchhod v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 339 (Guj.),
Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Addl., ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC),
Lakhmani Mewal Das v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 296 (Cal) (FB),
Manik Chand Nahata v. ITO [1970] 78 ITR 204 (Cal.),
P.K. Nair v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 512 (Ker.),
S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC),
Poonjabhai Vanmalidas and Sons v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 251 (Guj.) [FB],
Raza Textiles Ltd. v. ITO [1973] 87 ITR 539 (SC),
Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC),
Union Carbide (India) Ltd. v. ITO [1973] 87 ITR 529 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
147,
148,
34(1)(a)
|