| Case ID |
7f85fa58-c9bb-4a52-9d66-b18e5084255f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL RULE No. 12565(W) OF 1976 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 14, 1982 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 10, 1982 |
| Decision |
The court upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, confirming that the Income Tax Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment. The case revolved around the admission by the assessee that certain loans were not genuine and represented the firm's own money. The judgment emphasized the importance of the ITO's belief based on discrepancies in the assessee's statements during the original assessment and subsequent disclosures. The court ruled that the affidavit submitted by the succeeding ITO was valid and could be considered, as it corresponded with the reasons recorded in the original assessment. |
| Summary |
In the case of Ratanlal Mohta & Sons v. Income Tax Officer, the Calcutta High Court addressed significant issues regarding income escaping assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) based on the firm's disclosure that certain loans, previously considered genuine, were actually fictitious. The judgment highlighted the importance of the ITO's belief formed from discrepancies in the original assessment and subsequent admissions made by the assessee. The ruling confirmed that the affidavit of the succeeding ITO could be taken into account, reinforcing the standards for reopening assessments under section 147. This case serves as a critical reference for understanding how disclosures and the credibility of evidence impact tax assessments, especially in scenarios involving alleged concealment of income. Such precedents are essential for legal practitioners and firms navigating tax laws, emphasizing the need for transparency in financial disclosures. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M.N. Roy, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Anil Kanti Roy Chowdhury,
Bijoy Krishna Dutta,
Miss Dipti Sinha,
Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta,
Rupendra Nath Mitra
|
| Petitioners |
Ratanlal Mohta & Sons
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1984 SLD 621,
(1984) 148 ITR 246
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Nathuram Gokulka [1983] 141 ITR 791 (Cal.),
Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (SC),
Banshidhar Ghanshyamdas v. ITO (Matter No. 531 of 1967-25-4-1972),
Bhagwanji Bhawanbhai & Co. v. CIT [1983] 141 ITR 640 (Cal.),
Bhawaelal Chandmull v. ITO (Matter No. 58 of 1970-16-6-1972),
Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC),
CIT v. A.K. Das [1970] 77 ITR 31 (Cal.),
Addl. CIT v. Kanhaiyalal Jessaram [1977] 106 ITR 326 (Cal.),
East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 128 ITR 326(Cal.),
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1979] 116 ITR 710 (Cal.),
Gumani Ram Siri Ram v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 67 (Punj. & Har.),
Gupta Cold Storage v. ITO [1978] 115 ITR 819 (All.),
ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC),
ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 489 (Cal.),
ITO v. R. Shantilal & Co. (P.) Ltd. (F.M.A. No. 859 of 1973-6-2-1980),
Jhinguriram Mahabiram v. ITO (Matter No. 752 of 1967 - 3-10-1972),
Kestra Mohan Roy v. ITO [1971] 81 ITR 15 (Cal.),
Lakhmani Mewal Das v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 296 (Cal.)(FB),
Madhya Prasad Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 268 (SC),
P.K. Nair v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 152 (Ker.),
H.A. Nahji & Co. v. ITO [1979] 120 ITR 593 (Cal.),
R. Shantilal & Co. Ltd. v. ITO (Civil Rule No. 2423(W) of 1967-4-12-1972),
Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC of IT [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC),
Suganchand Chandanmal v. ITO [1976] 105 ITR 743 (Cal.),
Union of India v. Rai Singh Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147,
149(a)(ii),
271(4A)
|