| Case ID |
42d856d9-57fe-4c51-9fbf-21a71ce39918 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 583 OF 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 09, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was valid. The court held that the belief of income escaping assessment was based on newly seized material that had not been considered in the original assessment. It emphasized that the sufficiency of the material cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction, and only the presence of relevant material to form the belief is necessary. The court concluded that the notice issued under section 148 was justified as it was based on significant evidence that indicated unaccounted sales and income. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the reassessment of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 147 and 148. The petitioner, Dinesh Chand Jain, challenged the validity of a notice issued for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1995-96. The case involved the examination of seized sale bill books that indicated unaccounted sales of Gutkha. The Allahabad High Court ruled that the belief of income escaping assessment was based on relevant material, thus affirming the issuance of the notice under section 148. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that tax assessments are based on complete and accurate information, particularly in cases involving unaccounted sales and potential tax evasion. Keywords such as 'Income-tax Act', 'unaccounted sales', 'reassessment', and 'tax evasion' are essential for understanding the implications of this ruling. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Ashok Enterprises,
M/s. S.B. Agencies,
Rajeev Bansal
|
| Judges |
R.K. Agrawal,
Rajes Kumar
|
| Lawyers |
S.D. Singh,
A.N. Mahajan
|
| Petitioners |
Dinesh Chand Jain
|
| Respondents |
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 3316,
(2006) 280 ITR 567
|
| Other Citations |
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO AIR 1961 SC 372,
CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),
Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC),
Smt. Jamila Ansari v. Income-tax Department [1997] 225 ITR 490/ 92 Taxman 603(All.),
CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh AIR 1965 SC 1421,
Manno Lal Kedar Nath v. Union of India 1978 UPTC 563,
ITC Ltd. v. Superintendent of Commercial Taxes [2000] 119 STC 530 (SC),
Foramer v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 436/119 Taxman 61 (All.),
CIT v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah [1971] 82 ITR 367 (SC),
G.R. Constructions v. ITO [1982]135 ITR 586/ 7 Taxman 306 (Guj.),
Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 114 ITR 404 (AP),
ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC),
Indra Prastha Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 2005 UPTC 53,
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC),
Kundan Lal Ratan Lal Jain v. Assessing Officer [2000] 245 ITR 434/[2003] 129 Taxman 848 (All.),
Ess Ess Kay Engg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 818/[2002] 124 Taxman 491 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147,
148,
143(3)
|