COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MANILAL TARACHAND

ITR/95/1988HC GujaratGJHC24013172198824 September 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in setting aside the CIT's order under Section 263, though for reasons different from those of the Tribunal. The Court found that the dispute between the assessee and the department was primarily about the year in which the compensation was taxable. The assessee believed tax was payable only upon receipt and disclosed it in AY 1975-76. While the ITO could initiate reassessment for AY 1973-74, the Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable on these facts. Since no penalty was leviable, the CIT could not assume jurisdiction under Section 263. The Court did not express an opinion on the Tribunal's reasoning or the larger controversy regarding the CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, had land acquired for which compensation was received. For Assessment Year 1973-74, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, bringing to tax long-term capital gains on this compensation, which the assessee had not disclosed in the original return for that year. However, the assessee had disclosed this income in his return for Assessment Year 1975-76, and the reassessment proceedings for AY 1973-74 were initiated based on this disclosure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for failing to mention initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order made by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: 1. The provisions of Section 263 did not empower the CIT to assume jurisdiction solely on the ground of failure to initiate penalty proceedings at the time of assessment. 2. In the given facts and circumstances, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thus precluding the initiation of penalty proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: 1. The CIT was justified in acting under Section 263 because the ITO had failed to initiate penalty proceedings. The CIT relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court decisions in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain, 125 ITR 375 and Addl. CIT (MP) vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals, 123 ITR 874. 2. The assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by failing to disclose the property's notification for acquisition and entitlement to compensation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 263,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 95 of 1988

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -----------------------------------------------

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 →