| Case ID |
25a2f403-22b3-4b6c-91ab-eaf5199bca61 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No. 1562 of 1977 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 16, 1996 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court ruled that the Income Tax Officer had valid grounds to issue a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The Court emphasized that the duty of the assessee is to provide complete and accurate information regarding all material facts, including the authenticity of loans claimed. The Court upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer due to the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment, as the assessee's disclosures were found to be misleading and false. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the reassessment actions taken by the Income Tax Officer. |
| Summary |
In the case of Sri Krishna Pvt Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the crucial issue of reassessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the failure of the assessee to disclose all material facts related to the loans they claimed during the assessment year 1959-60. The Income Tax Officer discovered that many of the loans presented were bogus and involved close relations with the company's directors. The Court highlighted the importance of full and true disclosure by the assessee and confirmed that the Income Tax Officer rightfully initiated reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act due to the misleading information provided by the assessee. The ruling reinforces the legal obligation of taxpayers to present accurate financial information and the authority of tax officers to reassess based on such findings. This case serves as a significant precedent for tax law, emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in financial disclosures to avoid reassessment and potential legal consequences. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
B.P. Jeevan Reddy,
S.B. Majmudar
|
| Lawyers |
Jaideep Gupta,
B.B. Ahuja,
B.S. Ahuja,
S.N. Terdol
|
| Petitioners |
others,
Sri Krishna Pvt Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer,
others
|
| Citations |
1997 SLD 162,
1997 PTD 1337,
(1995) 213 ITR 538,
(1996) 75 TAX 206
|
| Other Citations |
Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC),
CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC),
Barum Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (1966) 36 Com. Cas. 639,
Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1991) 191 ITR 662 (SC),
Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC),
I.T.O. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC),
I.T.O. v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC),
I A.C. of I.T. v. VIP Industries Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 661 (SC),
VIP Industries Ltd. v. IAC (1991) 187 ITR 639 (Bom.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147,
148
|