9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to notice u/s 148 for assessment year 1969-70; Controversy over grinding charges deduction; Validity of reasons for reopening assessment.
Challenge to notice u/s 148: The petitioner challenged a notice issued by income-tax authorities u/s 148 for the assessment year 1969-70, alleging lack of disclosure of reasons for initiation of proceedings. The petitioner's assessment for the year was previously set aside and remade. The notice was issued after four years from the original assessment, requiring satisfaction of specific conditions by the Income-tax Officer. Controversy over grinding charges deduction: The dispute centered around the allowance of grinding charges paid by the petitioner to a company, which were claimed in assessments for 1969-70 and subsequent years. The petitioner argued that the notice u/s 148 was unjustified as the deduction had been disclosed and allowed in previous assessments, citing legal precedents to support the contention that the Income-tax Officer lacked authority to issue the notice. Validity of reasons for reopening assessment: The Income-tax Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment included discrepancies in the payment of grinding charges, inability to trace original bills, and doubts regarding the genuineness of the transaction. The petitioner contended that the reasons were based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence, emphasizing the lack of specific facts not disclosed during the original assessment proceedings. Judgment: The court held that the notice issued u/s 148 was valid as the Income-tax Officer had sufficient reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment due to lack of full disclosure by the assessee. Legal precedents were cited to support the authority of the Officer to reopen assessments based on fresh information. The court emphasized that the sufficiency and correctness of the material were not to be considered at that stage, leaving the merits of the case open for further investigation by the assessing authority. The application challenging the notice was dismissed, with the court affirming the validity of the reopening of the case.
|
