INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX-CUM-WEALTH TAX CIRCLE II, HYDERABAD vs. NAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN BAHADUR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1179/1970Supreme Court[1975] 2 S.C.R. 46416 October 1974Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: HANS RAJ KHANNA, A.C. GUPTA6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the existence of the two trust deeds executed in 1957 did not constitute a material fact that was omitted or not truly disclosed by the assessee, and therefore, the Income Tax Officer lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the assessments under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that the 1957 deeds contained the same descriptions of the ladies as wives and their children as his children, which were already present in the 1950 trust deeds. The ITO had accepted the explanation provided by the respondent's representative regarding the status of these ladies during the original assessment. The non-production of the 1957 deeds, which merely repeated information already disclosed, could not be regarded as a non-disclosure of a material fact necessary for the assessment. The Court affirmed that the expression 'reason to believe' in Section 147 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction but requires a rational connection to the formation of the belief. Consequently, the High Court had the power under Article 226 to set aside a notice under Section 147 if the condition precedent for exercising jurisdiction did not exist. The Court also noted that it was open to the ITO to make the presumption regarding the ladies being wives at the time of the original assessment, and he could not use Section 147 to correct a past mistake. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1955-56 to 1958-59 against the respondent, Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur. The reassessment was based on the discovery of two trust deeds executed in 1957, which, like earlier trust deeds from 1950, described three ladies as wives of the respondent and their children as his children. The respondent had previously clarified in 1957 that only one lady was his legally wedded wife, and the other three were 'ladies of position' referred to as wives in the trust deeds, with their children not being legitimate. The original assessments had been completed without including the income of these ladies and their minor children under Section 16(3) of the 1922 Act, as they were assessed separately. The respondent challenged the reassessment notices, and the High Court quashed them. The ITO appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the existence of two trust deeds executed in 1957, which described three ladies as wives of the respondent and their children as his children, constituted a material fact that was omitted or not truly disclosed by the assessee, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Income Tax Officer to reopen assessments under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention (implied from the High Court's decision and the Supreme Court's reasoning): The trust deeds of 1957 did not contain any new material facts not already disclosed or available to the Income Tax Officer at the time of the original assessments. The description of the ladies as wives in the 1957 deeds was consistent with the 1950 deeds, and the explanation provided by the respondent's representative regarding their status was accepted during the original assessment. Therefore, the condition precedent for reassessment under Section 147(a) was not met. Revenue's contention (implied from the appeal): The existence of the 1957 trust deeds was a material fact that was not disclosed, and this omission or failure justified the reopening of assessments under Section 147(a). The revenue also argued that the High Court, under Article 226, lacked the power to investigate the justification of the ITO's belief under Section 147.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 16(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 43 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

464 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX-CUM-WEALTH TAX CIRCLE II, HYDERABAD v. NAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN BAHADUR October 16, 1974 [H. R. KHANNA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.)

Income taX Act, 1961, a. 141-Scope of-High Court's power of Interference under Art. 226. In 1950, the respondent had executed three trust deeds for the benefit of three ladies who were described as his wives, and himself, as the father of their min1~r children. After the returns in respect of the ass1:ssment year 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957· 58 and 1958-59. were filed by the respondent, the Income-tax Officer, who had the three trust deeds before him called upon the respondent for information regarding his relationship to those three ladies as well as his relationship to a fourth lady, A statement was filed, on behalf of the respondent, before the Income-tax Offici:r, wherein it was stated that only the fourtb lady was his legally wedded wife, that the other three were merely referred to as the wives, and that their children wer1~ n1Jt the legitimate children of the r~ondent. The Income-tax Officer, in assessing the total income of the respondent did not include, under s. 16(3) of the 1922-Act, the income of

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →