| Case ID |
2cf57de6-aa6d-4a1d-9636-9cc6b12506cb |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MATTER No. 49 OF 1974 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 02, 1976 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The decision held in favor of the assessee, concluding that the partners' confessions regarding undisclosed income did not constitute valid grounds for reopening the firm's assessment. The court determined that the income of the partners, rather than that of the firm, had escaped assessment. It emphasized that the necessary conditions for issuing the notice under section 148 were not met, leading to the quashing of the notice. The court also noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax had been misled into granting sanction under the impression that the firm itself had confessed, which was incorrect. The judgment stressed the importance of accurate representation in tax assessments and the sanctity of due process in reopening cases. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning notices issued for income escaping assessment. The Calcutta High Court ruled that the confessions made by the partners of a registered firm regarding undisclosed income did not provide sufficient grounds for the Income Tax Officer to believe that the firm's income had escaped assessment. The court emphasized that the partners' confessions were made in their individual capacities, not on behalf of the firm. The court quashed the notice issued under section 148, indicating that the necessary conditions for reopening the assessment were not fulfilled. This ruling underscores critical issues in tax law related to the obligations of firms and their partners in disclosing income, as well as the procedural safeguards that must be adhered to when challenging assessments. The case highlights the importance of accurate information and representation in tax matters, making it a key reference for future cases involving similar issues. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
Suganchand Chandanmal
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1976 SLD 504,
(1976) 105 ITR 743
|
| Other Citations |
Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 (Bom.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
148,
271(4A),
147(a)
|