INCOME TAX OFFICER, JODHPUR vs. PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR AND ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3041/1983Supreme Court[1997] 1 S.C.R. 48022 January 1997Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI B10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) completed assessments for assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72, accepting the assessees' claims of long-term capital loss on share sales. Subsequently, the ITO received a letter from the Deputy Director, Directorate of Inspection (Investigation), Special Cell, New Delhi, providing definite information with documentary proof. This information indicated that the fair market value of the shares was higher than the sale price, and the market quotations used in the original assessment were manipulated, leading to escaped income. The ITO issued notices under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, proposing reassessment. The assessees filed writ petitions, which the High Court quashed, holding the ITO lacked valid reasons for reassessment. The Revenue appealed.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Income Tax Officer had valid reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The information contained in the Deputy Director's letter, supported by annexed documents detailing the company's improved financial performance (book value, earnings, dividends) juxtaposed with falling share quotations, constituted definite information. This information provided a basis to believe that the market quotations were manipulated and income had escaped assessment. The Court rejected the argument that the notice issued the day after receiving the information indicated a non-application of mind; it found that the ITO could form the belief without further investigation. Consequently, the High Court's judgment quashing the notices under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act and Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act was set aside. The appeals were allowed, and the writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72, within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the information received from the Deputy Director. - Assessee's contention (as per High Court's finding): The information received was not definite, there was no evidence of manipulation or collusive transactions, and the ITO did not conduct further inquiries, thus lacking sufficient grounds for reassessment. - Revenue's contention: The information received was definite and supported by documentary proof, establishing a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. 2. Whether the notices issued under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, were valid, given the same underlying information and the High Court's decision on the Income Tax Act notices. - Assessee's contention (implied): If the Income Tax Act notices were invalid, so were the Wealth Tax Act notices. - Revenue's contention: The notices under the Wealth Tax Act were valid for the same reasons as the Income Tax Act notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147(b),Section 17

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B INCOME TAX OFFICER, JODHPUR v. PURUSHOTTAl\.f DAS BANGUR AND ANR. JANUARY 22, 1997 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

Income Tax Act, 1961- S.147 (b)-Reassessment-Notice for reassess- ment by the Income Tax Officer to the assessee, on the basis of definite C inf onnation received by him, that some income of the assessee escaped as- - ~essment-Held: the Income Tax Officer could issue notice under Section 147(b) on the basis of definite infomwtion received by him-Notice sent by Income Tax Officer, the next day of receiving infomiation-Held, could not be construed as non-applicali'on of mind by the Income Tax Officer to the inf onnation received. D Wealth Tax Act, 1957--Sec. 17-Notice of reassessment issued under Section 17 on the basis of s11bseq11ent definite infonnation-Held: Valid.

The Income Tax Offic:er completed the assessment for the assess· ment years 1969-70 and 1971-72 accepting the respondent- asses sees' claim E that they had suffered long-term capital loss on sale of shares of a particular company. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer received a letter from the Deputy Director, Directorate of Inspection (Investigation), Spe· cial Cell, New Del

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147(b)

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →