| Case ID |
43e6659f-2aaf-4205-9678-9c1d3f2edcd8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL ORDER No. 545 OF 1971 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 27, 1973 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 27, 1971 |
| Decision |
The court ruled in favor of the revenue, stating that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had valid grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court emphasized that the ITO's jurisdiction was justified based on the evidence presented, including local inquiries that indicated the transaction in question was not genuine. The court noted that despite the petitioner's claims of full disclosure, the evidence suggested otherwise, leading to the conclusion that the reassessment notice was validly issued. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs, underscoring the importance of transparency in tax assessments and the responsibilities of the taxpayer. |
| Summary |
In the case of Girindranath Paul v. Income Tax Officer, the Calcutta High Court addressed issues related to income escaping assessment under the Income Tax Act of 1961. The core of the case revolved around the validity of a reassessment notice issued by the ITO, which was based on the belief that the petitioner had not fully disclosed material facts necessary for the assessment year 1959-60. The ITO had initiated proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, after discovering that a cash credit transaction of Rs. 30,000 was not genuine. The court highlighted the duties of the taxpayer in disclosing all relevant facts and the ITO's right to reassess if there is evidence of concealment. This case reinforces the critical nature of accurate tax disclosures and the legal framework governing tax reassessments, making it a significant reference point for tax law practitioners and taxpayers alike. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
GUPTA,
SALIL KUMAR DATTA
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. D. Pal,
Sanjay Bhattacharjee,
Nanda Lal Pal
|
| Petitioners |
Girindranath Paul
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1975 SLD 603 = (1975) 99 ITR 426
|
| Other Citations |
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC),
Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC),
Lakhmani Mewal Das v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 296 (Cal.) (FB),
Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC),
Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd. v. Singapore Improvement Trust AIR 1937 PC 265,
London Scottish Permanent Building Society, In re [1893] 63 LJ QB 112,
Rex v.North [1927] 1 KB 491 (CA),
Madhavlal Sindhoo v. V.R. Indurkar [1956] 30 ITR 332 (Bom.),
P.C. Doshi v. Seventh, ITO Bombay[1967] 65 ITR 187 (Bom.),
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. v. Balwant Regular Motor Service AIR 1969 SC 329,
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd [1874] LR 5 PC 221
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
148,
147
|