| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 152 1999 SLD 152 1999 PTD 977 (1998) 232 ITR 864 |
Madras High Court
T.Cs. Nos.857 to 863 of 1983 (References Nos.432 to 438 of 1982), decision dated: 18-02-1997
K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDDICK, JJ
C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. N. Devandhan for the Assessee (in T.Cs. Nos.857 and 858 of 1983). Philip George for the Assessee (in T.Cs. Nos.859 to 863 of 1983)
T.Cs. Nos.857 to 863 of 1983 (References Nos.432 to 438 of 1982), decision dated: 18-02-1997
K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDDICK, JJ
C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. N. Devandhan for the Assessee (in T.Cs. Nos.857 and 858 of 1983). Philip George for the Assessee (in T.Cs. Nos.859 to 863 of 1983)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
VS
S. MUTHUKUMARASAMY UDAYAR and another
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 147
Income-tax----Reassessment---Wealth tax---Information that income and wealth have escaped assessment---Interpretation of law by IAC would not constitute information---Reassessments under Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act based on such interpretation are not valid---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, 5.147---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.17. The interpretation of law by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would not constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957: Held, that, in the present case, the Income-tax Officer as well as the Wealth Tax Officer, reopened the original assessment to bring to tax the interest accrued on cross gifts made by two of the Kartas of their respective Hindu undivided families. According to the assessee, even at the time when the original assessment was made, all the accounts and necessary particulars were placed before the assessing authority and it was only after perusing all the materials, the assessing authority came to the conclusion that the interest received on the gifts was not taxable under the Income Tax Act and not includible in the net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in a memorandum directed the assessing authorities to reopen the assessments and make fresh, assessment. The Tribunal, after perusing the memorandum issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, came to the conclusion that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had interpreted the law and directed the assessing authority to reopen the assessment. The reassessments under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax .pct were not valid. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) applied. Arvind Kumar v. ITO (1984) 146 ITR 437 (MP); Bireswar Sarkar v. GTO (1997) 223 ITR 404 (Cal.); CIT v. Kothari (C.M.) (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 107; Munna Lal and Sons v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 378 (All.) and Devarajulu Natdu (G.K.) v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 686 (Mad.) ref. JUDGMENT K.A. THANIKKACHALAM, J.--- At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, in the case of…
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