Case Details

Citation(s)
1968 SLG 161 1968 SLD 161 (1968) 68 ITR 594
Bombay High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 87 OF 1962, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967
KOTVAL, C.J. AND V.S. DESAI, J
G. N. Joshi and R. J. Joshi for the Applicant. S. P. Mehta, Y. P. Trivedi and P. H. Parikh for the
Respondent

Commissioner of INCOME TAX

v.

A. J. Zaverl

Law:

Section:

Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 34(1)(b) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income escaping assessment - Information - Position prior to 1-4-1989 - Assessment years 1952-53 & 1953-54 - Whether what would constitute information within meaning of section 34(1)(b) would even be a decision of an appellate authority under Act on question as to which assessable entity is chargeable in respect of a particular income - Held, yes - While making original assessment on facts before him, ITO took view that income from a medical store, though claimed by assessee as his income, was in fact income of 'M' and, thus, included said income in M's assessment - Tribunal held that said income had been assessed in hands of wrong person - ITO accordingly treating Tribunal's decision as information within meaning of section 34(1)(b) of 1922 Act, for initiating reassessment proceedings for assessment year 1953-54, while for assessment year 1952-53, he made assessment under section 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act on ground that return signed by agent of assessee was not a proper and valid return - Whether, it was not possible for department to treat return filed for assessment year 1952-53 as no return or an invalid return so as to permit it to take action under section 34(1)(a), and, hence, proceedings were not validly initiated under section 34(1)(a) - Held, yes - Whether where information conveyed by Tribunal's decision to ITO was that he had erred in holding that income belonged to 'M' and not to assessee and in consequence of his error he had allowed assessee's income to escape assessment, it was an information under section 34(1)(b) of 1922 Act which entitled ITO to initiate proceedings under section 34 of 1922 Act - Held, yes FACTS The assessee had purchased a running medical store from one 'M' and had been assessed as the owner of this business for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, and the returns, though signed by the assessee's agent, had been accepted as a valid return. For the assessment years 1952-53 & 1953-54, returns were filed by the assessee. The return for the first year was signed by 'M' as in the earlier year as the power ofโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ”’
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