PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1235/1977Supreme Court1993 INSC 22613 July 1993Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.C. AGRAWAL, A.S. ANAND PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANR.26 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and another, an income tax assessee, claimed to have borrowed Rs. 50,000 in cash on May 19, 1962, from a Calcutta Company for the assessment year 1963-64. Interest on this loan was deducted for assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) Azamgarh doubted the genuineness of the loan and received information from the ITO Calcutta that the Calcutta Company's business was 'name lending' with no finance distributed. Consequently, the ITO Azamgarh issued a notice on August 26, 1971, proposing to reopen the assessment for assessment year 1965-66 under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, believing income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The assessee contended that all primary facts were disclosed during the original assessment. The ITO issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court, holding that the information received could form the basis for a reasonable belief of escaped income. The High Court granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Income Tax Officer rightly initiated reassessment proceedings. The Court affirmed that an ITO acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147(a) read with Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if two conditions are met: (a) the ITO has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has been under-assessed or escaped assessment, and (b) such escapement or under-assessment was due to the assessee's omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Both conditions must coexist. The ITO is obliged to record reasons for this belief. The Court clarified that the truthfulness or falsehood of transactions can be examined subsequent to the original assessment, and it is immaterial if the ITO could have discovered this during the original assessment. The purpose of Section 147 is to prevent assessees from escaping consequences by making false statements. The belief to reopen is the ITO's, and the sufficiency of reasons is not for the court to judge, unless the belief is non-existent, not bonafide, or based on vague information. The appeal was dismissed, but the assessee was granted six weeks to reply to the show cause notice, and the ITO was directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not on the merits of the reassessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer has the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if subsequent information reveals that the primary facts disclosed during the original assessment were not true and full, leading to income escaping assessment? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that its obligation was to disclose primary facts, and once disclosed, the ITO must draw inferences. If the ITO accepted the disclosed facts and concluded the assessment, subsequent information that casts doubt on the truthfulness or inferences drawn from those facts does not grant jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee's obligation is to make a "true and full" disclosure of basic facts. An omission to do so empowers the ITO to reopen a concluded assessment. The adequacy of grounds for reassessment is not for courts to investigate if the ITO's belief is based on relevant material and is bonafide.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 147(a),Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANR. '· v. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. JULY 13, 1993 B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961-Ss. 147, 148 149-Income escaping· assess- ment-Assessing Officer's juri iction to reopen assessment-Held, Income Tax Officer can reopen assessment only if on the basis of specific, reliable c and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently he has reasons to beliel'e that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a tnte and full disclosure of all material facts any part of his income profit or gains chargeable to income tax has escaped assess- ment-To say that the question regarding truthfulness or falsehood of'certain D transaction reflected in retunz can only be examined during original assessnlent proceedings and not at any stage subsequent thereto, does violence to plane phraseology of ss. 147(a), and 148 and is against the settled law.

The appellant firm was an income tax assessee at Azamgarb(U.P.).

In the income tax returns for the assessment year 1963-64, it claimed to E have borrowed in cash a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 19.5.1962 from a Calcutta Company and filed a letter

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

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →