| Case ID |
1f4edff8-8a06-4d5a-b076-3d43c515bb61 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revisions Nos. 2099 (W) and 2494 (W) of 1978 |
| Decision Date |
May 05, 1980 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Calcutta High Court quashed the notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The court held that the petitioners had disclosed all material facts regarding the construction of the cold storage and the cost incurred. The Income Tax Officer's decision to reopen the assessments was based solely on the valuation made by the petitioners' valuer in 1968, which was deemed inappropriate for determining earlier costs. The court emphasized that the Income Tax Officer must have concrete reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the petitioners' failure to disclose material facts, which was not established in this case. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the reassessment of income tax concerning the construction of a cold storage facility by the petitioners. The core issue was whether there was an omission to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment. The petitioners contended that they fully disclosed all relevant information during the original assessments, including the cost of construction. The Income Tax Officer later sought to reassess based on a significantly higher valuation provided by the petitioners' valuer years later. The court found that the reassessment was not justified, as it relied solely on the later valuation without considering the facts disclosed at the time of the original assessments. The ruling underscores the importance of full disclosure and the limitations on the ability of tax authorities to reopen assessments without sufficient grounds. This case is significant in understanding the principles of tax assessments and the obligations of taxpayers under the Income Tax Act. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
CHANDAN KUMAR BANERJEE, J
|
| Lawyers |
Sanjay Bhattacharjee,
Sardar Amjad Ali,
Miss Aparna Dutta,
B. L. Pal,
Samar Banerjee
|
| Petitioners |
RASIKLAL JIVANLAL SHAH AND OTHERS
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
1983 SLD 27,
1983 PTD 152,
(1983) 47 TAX 90
|
| Other Citations |
C. I. T. v. Chidambaram Chettiar (T. S. P L. P.) (1971) 80 I T R 467 (S C),
Gooyee (B. K.) v. C.. L T. ([966) 62 I T R 109 (Cal.),
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. I. T. O. (1979) 116 I T R 710 (Cal.),
Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. C.I.T. (1979) 119 I T R 996 (S C),
I.T. O. v. Chandi Prasad Yodt (1979)119 I T R 340 (Cal.),
I.T.O. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 I T R 437 (S C),
I,T. O. v. Madanani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 118 I T R 1 (S C),
Jeevanlal Ltd . I.T.O. (1978) 115 I T R 465 (Cal.),
Minott Haider (Smt.) v. I.T.O. (1978) 115 I T R 471 (Cal.),
Narayandas Paramanddas v. I.T.O. (1977)107 I T R 1.179 (Cal.),
Nirmala Birla (Smt.) v. W.T. O. (1976) 105 I T R 483 (Cal.),
Parvathamma (K. L )) v. I.T.O. (1974) 93 I T R 138 (Mys.),
Sewlal Daga v. C.I.T. (1965) 55 I T R 406 (Cal.),
Venkata Narayana & Sore (Kantamani) v. LT.O. (First Addl.) (1967) 63 I T R 638 (S C)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
Not available
|