H.S. Bawa v. CIT - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0258 (P&H-HC) : (2013) 049 (I) ITCL 0190 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Reassessment--Income escaping assessment Non-disclosure of primary facts--Assessee claimed investment allowance under section 32A which was allowed by assessing officer. Subsequently, assessing officer issued notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment of assessee. Assessee contended that when he had fully and truly disclosed the facts at the time of original assessment, it could not be reopened beyond a period of 4 years and therefore, notice for reopening was not valid. *Held:* Mere production of books of account or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by assessing officer would not amount to full and true disclosure within the meaning of section 147. The case is governed by section 149(1)(a)(i) and not by section 149(1)(b). The notice of reassessment was thus valid as it was issued within limitation. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 149 In the Punjab & Haryana High Court M. M. Kumar & Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. H. S. Bawa v. CIT CWP No. 7474 of 1990 A.Ys. 1984-85 & 1985-86 24 January, 2012 Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 149 *Decision:Against the assessee. Petitioner by :* Ravish Sood JUDGMENT This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7474 and 7488 of 1990 as both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner involve identical facts and questions. However, facts are being extracted from CWP No.7474 of 1990, as narrated in the petition. 2. The petitioner was a doctor practicing at Jalandhar. He filed his return for the assessment year 1984-85 alongwith balance sheet and profit and loss account. He had later filed a revised computation chart showing investment allowance claim of Rs. 23,111. Assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') on 25-7-1986, Annexure P.2. Similar investment allowance claim was made by the petitioner for the earlier assessment year i.e. 1983-84 on the same terms as in the assessment year 1985-86. This claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer. On appeal by the petitioner in the assessment year 1983-84, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the petitioner for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was reversed and investment allowance was disallowed, vide order dated 28-1-1988, Annexure P-5. On September 26, 1986, a raid was conducted at the house and hospital of the petitioner for investigating the alleged concealment of income. According to the petitioner, this raid was conducted with mala fide intention at the instance of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the said respondent got started scrutiny proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87 against the petitioner. Vide order dated 17-3-1989, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax assessed the return of the petitioner for the assessment year 1986-87 after clubbing the income of the petitioner with that of Bawa Nursing Home, the lessee firm. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 28-2-1990. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 15-11-1988, Annexure P.3 for re-opening the assessment already done in the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 1984-85. Similar notices had been issued in respect of assessment years 1980-81 to 1985-86. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0258 (P&H-HC) : (2013) 049 (I) ITCL 0190

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Reassessment--Income escaping assessment Non-disclosure of primary facts--Assessee claimed investment allowance under section 32A which was allowed by assessing officer. Subsequently, assessing officer issued notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment of assessee. Assessee contended that when he had fully and truly disclosed the facts at the time of original assessment, it could not be reopened beyond a period of 4 years and therefore, notice for reopening was not valid. Held: Mere production of books of account or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by assessing officer would not amount to full and true disclosure within the meaning of section 147. The case is governed by section 149(1)(a)(i) and not by section 149(1)(b). The notice of reassessment was thus valid as it was issued within limitation.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 149

In the Punjab & Haryana High Court

M. M. Kumar & Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ.

H. S. Bawa v. CIT

CWP No. 7474 of 1990

A.Ys. 1984-85 & 1985-86

24 January, 2012

Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 149

Decision:Against the assessee.

Petitioner by : Ravish Sood

JUDGMENT

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7474 and 7488 of 1990 as both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner involve identical facts and questions. However, facts are being extracted from CWP No.7474 of 1990, as narrated in the petition.

2. The petitioner was a doctor practicing at Jalandhar. He filed his return for the assessment year 1984-85 alongwith balance sheet and profit and loss account. He had later filed a revised computation chart showing investment allowance claim of Rs. 23,111. Assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') on 25-7-1986, Annexure P.2. Similar investment allowance claim was made by the petitioner for the earlier assessment year i.e. 1983-84 on the same terms as in the assessment year 1985-86. This claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer. On appeal by the petitioner in the assessment year 1983-84, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the petitioner for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was reversed and investment allowance was disallowed, vide order dated 28-1-1988, Annexure P-5. On September 26, 1986, a raid was conducted at the house and hospital of the petitioner for investigating the alleged concealment of income. According to the petitioner, this raid was conducted with mala fide intention at the instance of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the said respondent got started scrutiny proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87 against the petitioner. Vide order dated 17-3-1989, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax assessed the return of the petitioner for the assessment year 1986-87 after clubbing the income of the petitioner with that of Bawa Nursing Home, the lessee firm. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 28-2-1990. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 15-11-1988, Annexure P.3 for re-opening the assessment already done in the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 1984-85. Similar notices had been issued in respect of assessment years 1980-81 to 1985-86.