Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 71 1988 SLD 71 1988 PTD 665
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No. 1792 of 1971, decision dated: 16-11-1976
H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ
R.H. Dhebar, S.K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia for Appellant. R. M. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Girish Chandra for respondent

PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD

VS

Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, WARD A, RAJKOT

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 10(2)(vi),(viA),34(1)(a)

Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---Ss. 10(2)(vi), proviso (c), (vi-a) & 34(1)(a)--Re-assessment-¬notice after expiry of four years from end of assessment year-¬Jurisdiction--Failure of assessee to disclose fully and truly all materia facts--Original assessment--Higher amount of depreciation allowed b) failure of Income-tax Officer to take into account initial depreciation-¬whether failure of assessee to disclose material facts. When an Income-tax Officer relies upon his own records fog determining the amount of depreciation allowable to the assessee and makes a mistake in doing so, responsibility for that mistake cannot lie ascribed to an omission or failure on the part of the assessee. Where, in working out the figures of depreciation for certain items of capital assets, the Income-tax Officer lost sight of the fact that the aggregate of the depreciation, including the initial depreciation allowed under the different heads, could not exceed the original cost to the assessee of those items of capital assets the assessee cannot be held responsible for the remissness on the pint of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in proviso (c) to section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and it cannot be said that excess depreciation allowed because of the mist;3ke in the calculation of the depreciation, was allowed and income escaped assessment because of the assessees omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts and no action can be taken for reopening the assessment oft the basis of detection of that mistake alone after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. Calcutta Discount Co. v. I.T.-O. (1961) 41 I T R 191 (SC); C.I.T. v. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 I T It 582 (5C); I.T.O. v. Lakhmani ,lewal Das (1976) 103 I T R 437 (SC) ref. JUDGMENT H.R. KHANNA, J.--This appeal on certificate is against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant for a writ of certiorari or Other appropriate writ to quash two notices issued by the respondent to the appellant under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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