INCOME TAX OFFICER, I WARD, DIST. VI, CALCUTTA & ORS. vs. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2526/1972Supreme Court[1976] 3 S.C.R. 95630 March 1976Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: HANS RAJ KHANNA, P.K. GOSWAMI A10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in March 1967, believing that the respondent's income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 1958-59 had escaped assessment. The respondent contended that the ITO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment based on a mere change of opinion. The High Court quashed the notice, finding the ITO's report to the Commissioner under Section 147(a) defective. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenged this finding. The original assessment for AY 1958-59 was completed on June 14, 1960, with a total income of Rs. 37,872, including a deduction of Rs. 15,991 for expenses, which comprised Rs. 10,494 as interest.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the material before the Income Tax Officer was insufficient to form a rational belief that the assessee's income had escaped assessment due to a failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. The Court elaborated that for Section 147(a) to apply, two conditions must coexist: (i) the ITO must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, and (ii) such escapement must be by reason of the assessee's omission or failure to disclose material facts. The grounds cited by the ITO – that certain creditors were known name-lenders and that one creditor had confessed to name-lending – were found to be too vague, remote, and lacking a rational connection or live link to the specific assessment year and the assessee's alleged non-disclosure. The duty of the assessee is to disclose primary facts, and it is for the ITO to draw inferences; a mere change of opinion on the ITO's part does not justify reopening. The Court reiterated that 'reason to believe' requires more than mere suspicion and necessitates a rational nexus between the material and the belief.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the conditions precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were fulfilled, specifically concerning the formation of a belief that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. Assessee's contentions: The ITO had no competence or jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147 on a mere change of opinion. The High Court correctly held that the ITO's report was defective. Revenue's contentions: The High Court was not right in holding that the Income Tax Officer's report was defective.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147(a),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

956 A INCOME TAX OFFICER, l WARD, DIST. VI, CALC.UTTA & ORS. B c D E F G H v. LAKHMANI MEW AL DAS March 30, 1976 [H. R. KHAN"fA AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] /nconie Tax Act, 1961--,S. 148-Scope of-Words & Phrases-"Reason to believe" meaning of 'ratio11al nexus'-What postulates.

Jn March 1967, a[ter obtaining the satisfaction of the Commissioner !he appel1ant issued a notice under s. 148 of the ln~o~e Tax Act. 1961 stating that he had reason to believe that the respondents income chargeable to t~ for the assessment year 1958-59 had escaped assessment. The respondent reph- ed that the I.T.0. had no competence or juri iction to reopen the assessment under s. 147 of the Act on a mere change of opinion.

Since there \vas no reply from the appellant, the respondent moved the High Cou!t for . a . w~it.

The High Court held that the conditions precedent for the exercISe of 1un~d1c· -1 tion by the Income Tax Officer were not fulfilled because the report subm1~ted by the Income Tax Officer to the Commissioner under s. 147(a) was defective.

On appeal to this Court it was contended tha' the High c_;ourt was not right in holding that the Income Tax Officer"s report was defe

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 148

All 34,599 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →