| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 1172 1983 SLD 1172 (1983) 143 ITR 333 |
Karnataka High Court
NOVEMBER 24, 1982 WRIT PETITION Nos. 30446 AND 30447 OF 1981.
M.P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J.
P.A. Bhat for the Petitioner. K. Srinivasan for the
Respondent.
NOVEMBER 24, 1982 WRIT PETITION Nos. 30446 AND 30447 OF 1981.
M.P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J.
P.A. Bhat for the Petitioner. K. Srinivasan for the
Respondent.
Hajee Mohamed Ibrahim
v.
Gift-tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 16(1)(b ) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 - Reassessment - Information - Though petitioner-assessee disclosed certain gifts in his gift-tax returns, GTO held that no gift was involved except in one case - Subsequently, assessee filed revised wealth-tax returns claiming deduction in respect of these gifts - Whether GTO had jurisdiction to reopen gift-tax assessments on the basis of these wealth-tax returns - Held, on facts, no Facts In his gift-tax returns, the petitioner-assessee disclosed certain gifts allegedly made to his wife and children. The GTO held, on a consideration of the entire matter, that only one item was a gift and that no gift was involved in other cases. The exemption claimed under section 5 was also denied to the assessee on that basis. Subsequently, the assessee filed his revised wealth-tax returns in respect of these very years and claimed deduction on account of these alleged gifts. Thereafter, the GTO issued notices to the assessee under section 16(1), on the basis of these wealth-tax returns. On writ : Held It was clear from the facts of the case that all the gifts referable to the relevant assessment years had been disclosed by the petitioner in the returns and these had not been treated by the GTO as gifts except in respect of one item. The GTO having formed that opinion and passed the order which the assessee had accepted, it could not be said that it was a case for reopening under section 16(1). The revenue could not contend that either the assessee had suppressed materials attracting section 16(1)(a) or there was any scope for 'information'' being available to the GTO within the meaning of section 16(1)(b). Accordingly, the GTO was not justified. Case review Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. ACED [1980] 122 ITR 21 (SC) relied on. Cases referred to Mrs. Khorshad Shapoor Chenai v. ACED [1980] 122 ITR 21 (SC), First ITO v. A.X. Panduranga Rao [1981] 128 ITR 250(Kar.) and ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC). Order 1. These two writ petitions are directed against the two notices issued by the respondent-GTO, under section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'). By the said notices relating to the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492