9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued for the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are challenged by way of two separate writ petitions. 3. The facts in general in respect of both the writ petitions are common. The writ petitioner Mr.Dayanidhi Maran assumed the Office of the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology on 21.5.2004 and he resigned from the Office of the Union Minister on 13.5.2007. The writ petitioner states that he filed the income tax returns for the assessment year (AY) 2008-2009 within the prescribed time stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act on 31.7.2008. The returns filed by the writ petitioner was assessed and the same reached finality. 4. While-so, the impugned notice has been issued by the respondent on 27.3.2015 under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment of the year 2008-2009. On receipt of notice, the writ petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent to provide reasons for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009. The said letter was sent to the respondent on 24.4.2015. However, on expiry of the statutory period of six years, in letter dated 8.5.2015, the respondent furnished the reasons for reopening the assessment year 2008-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under subsection (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year." 8. The learned Senior Counsel, while elaborating the amended phrase by the Direct Tax laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1.4.1989 that "has reason to believe" emphasises that the right to get reason for reopening the assessment is the vested right of an Assessee. It is contended that such a vested right provided by way of a Statute, more specifically, by amendment, cannot be taken away by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the vested right contemplated in respect of the reasons to be provided at the time of reopening of the assessment is mandatory and the same cannot be tinkered with by the respondents in order to harass the Assessees, who had already filed their returns long back and the same was assessed during the relevant point of time under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Section 147 of the Act, mandates the reasons to be recorded at the time of issuance of notice for reopening of the closed assessment. In the absence of recording the reasons for reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce is not sufficient. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that it is a precondition that in the event of any reason to believe and a decision is taken by the Competent Authorities, then, the reasons must be recorded in the notice and the same should be communicated to the Assessee. Thus, the twin requirements as per the Act is that the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe and such reasons which forms the basis for the reopening of the escaped assessment must be reduced in writing and communicated to the Assessee at the time of issuance of the notice. Thus, subsequent communication of the reasons will not save the defective notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act. 12. Section 148 defines issue of notice where the income has escaped assessment. Thus, even the decision is taken under Section 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Such reasons must be communicated to the Assessee along with the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 13. Section 149 deals with time limit for notice, which reads as under:- "(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if four years have elapsed from the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessments were provided after the expiry of the six years. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner is of an opinion that the date of communication of the reasons for reopening of the assessment must be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation. In other words, the reasons communicated to the writ petitioner after the expiry of the period of limitation of six years will vitiate the entire proceedings. Since law requires that along with the notice, the reasons must be communicated. If the reasons are communicated belatedly, then also the actions become null and void. Thus, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, is hit by the law of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner further contended that the Assessing Officer has not provided any independent reasons for reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer relying on the charge sheet filed by the CBI, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. The writ petitioner has already been discharged from the CBI case. However, it is informed that the appeal filed against the order of discharge is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for four different persons. Thus, the respondents themselves are not clear in respect of the transactions done between a foreign company and the company belongs to the blood brother of the writ petitioner. Under those circumstances, a mere suspicion would not provide a cause of action for reopening of the closed assessment. Reopening of the closed assessment cannot be done in a routine manner. There must be some concrete evidence and the authorities must have a reason to believe and such reasons must be reduced in writing and communicated to the Assessee. In the absence of complying all these ingredients under the provisions of the Act, the notice impugned cannot be sustained at all. A mere suspicion in respect of certain transactions cannot constitute a cause of action for the respondents to reopen the closed assessment. Thus, the very basis for the issuance of the impugned reopening of assessment is not supported with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly, the same is liable to be scrapped. 24. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner in support of the arguments cited the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar vs. U.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion and gone through the record carefully. Admittedly the reasons were not supplied to the assessee by 31st March, 2008 i.e. within a period of 6 years from the end of the asstt. year. The question before us is whether valid service of notice has been served upon the assessee within the limitation provided u/s 149 (1) (b) of the Act. According to this section the notice ought to be served within 6 years from the end of the asstt. year. The contention of the assessee is that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that if the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment has not been supplied or served within 6 years then it will be construed that no valid notice has been served upon the assessee within 6 years." 27. In the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2008) 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi)], wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in paragraphs-20 and 24, it has been held as follows:- "20. In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o hand-in-hand. The expression 'within a reasonable period of time' as used by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case cannot be stretched to such an extent that it extends even beyond the six years stipulated in section 149. For this reason also, even assuming that we overlook all that has happened between 11-5-2004, when the petitioner sought the reasons, and 5-11-2007, when the said form annexed to the counteraffidavit was filed in this court, the validity of the notices under section 148 issued on 29-3-2004 and any proceedings pursuant thereto cannot be upheld." 28. In respect of exhausting the alternate remedy, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner relying on the case of Union of India vs. Ajit Jain [(2003) 129 Taxman 74 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the entertainment of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, though on account of availability of statutory remedies Courts normally do not entertain the writ petitions but where an action is wholly without jurisdiction and results in the infringement of any fundamental right, the plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior Counsel urged this Court by stating that in any angle, the impugned order cannot survive for want of legal support and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed. PLEADINGS OF THE RESPONDENT AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS:- 30. The respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the fact that an alternate remedy is available and provided under the Income Tax Act itself. Without exhausing the remedies provided under the Statute, the present writ petitions cannot be entertained and accordingly, they are liable to be rejected in limine. 31. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of DOKI Nandan Singhania vs. CIT [190 ITR 289], Zigma Commodity P Ltd vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkatta [46 Taxmann.com 339], Dr.Nedunchezhian vs. CIT [279 ITR 342 (Madras)], CIT vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal [357 ITR 357 SC] and that of Kone Elevators India Ltd [35 Taxmann.com 102 (Madras)]. 32. It is contended that the information provided by the CBI would fall under the category of new information based on which the Assessing Officer has reason to believe and formed his opinion. It is pertinent to sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer has formed his belief for the same. Substantive proof for escapement of income in order to make any additions can only be made after verification of details during the proceedings. The writ petitioner had quoted from the speaking order but had conveniently omitted a line in between there by changing the context of the sentence with the intention to mislead this Court. Courts have consistently held that at the time of reopening, the Assessing Officer should possess of some material and is not required to establish the escapement of income, the validity of the reassessment on the basis of the final outcome of the reassessment proceeding on that item could not be proper. [See Sri Krishna P. Ltd vs. CIT [221 ITR 538 (SC)] and in the case of Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd vs. ITO [191 ITR 662], which support the stand of the Department. 36. The Assessee contends that foreign investments were brought into the country after obtaining various approval from the Government Agency. However, the CBI report suggest that the Assessee has used his personal influence and had obtained illegal gratification during the said process. Further, during the relevant time, when the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder by filing an appeal and therefore on this sole ground, the above writ petitions have to be dismissed in limine. 40. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, at the first instance, made a submission that in respect of WP No.3405 of 2016, the order of assessment had already been passed by the Assessing Officer and the same has not given effect to on account of the pendency of the present writ petition. In respect of WP No.43944 of 2016, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is kept under the sealed cover, so also the assessment order passed with referrence to WP No.44311 of 2016 has not given effect to. 41. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, at the outset, disputed the interpretations provided by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner with reference to Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In respect of maintainability of the writ petitions, it is contended that the writ petitioner is bound to participate in the process of assessment based on the notice issued by the Competent Authority under Section 148 of the Act and after passing of the assessment order, the writ petitioner is having appellate remedy under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son to believe that there are some materials for reopening of the assessment, then he can issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. 45. Explanation 1 to Section 147 states that "production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso". Explanation 1 to Section 147 enumerates that mere production of a document is not a ground to dispute the reopening of the assessment nor amount to a disclosure in respect of the escaped assessment. It clarifies that even in case where the Assessee had produced the document showing the income which was not assessed earlier, is also a ground for reopening of the assessed returns. Thus, the Assessee cannot plead that he had already produced the documents along with the returns at the time of filing and therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment already reached finality with reference to Section 143(1) of the Act. 46. It is further contended that an Explanation 2(c)(1) to Section 147 of the Act, reads as under:- "(c) where an as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Notice is a proposal mooted out by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 on coming to the conclusion that the authorities has got a "reason to believe" in respect of the materials available on record. Thus, the very notice will not provide a cause of action for the writ petitioner to file the present writ petitions. This apart, the writ petitioner had already been responded to the notice and pursuant to the request made by the writ petitioner, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were furnished to the writ petitioner, enabling him to submit his assessment as required under the provisions of the Act. As of now, there is no due of tax under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of any demand of tax and in the absence of any decision in respect of assessment, the writ petitions are certainly premature and filed only based on the presumptions and assumptions and such writ petitions filed on the apprehensions can never be entertained by this Court. 50. There is no bar for the authorities to form an opinion based on the Criminal Court charge sheet that it is a fit case for reopening of the assessment. The sufficiency of the materials can never be questioned by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner to accord sanction for the initiation of proceedings under Section 34 are required to be communicated to the assessee, this Court held: (S. Narayanappa case [AIR 1967 SC 523] , AIR p. 525, para 4) "4. ... There is no requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any section laying down as a condition for the initiation of the proceedings that the reasons which induced the Commissioner to accord sanction to proceed under Section 34 must also be communicated to the assessee." 16. We reject the submission of the appellant for the following reasons. Firstly, there is no express statutory requirement to communicate the reasons which led to the issuance of notice under Section 6 of the Act. Secondly, the reasons, though not initially supplied along with the notice dated 4-3- 1977, were subsequently supplied thereby enabling the appellant to effectively meet the case of the respondents. Thirdly, we are of the opinion that the case on hand is squarely covered by the ratio of Narayanappa case [AIR 1967 SC 523] . The appellant could have effectively convinced the respondents by producing the appropriate material that further steps in furtherance to the notice under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation to entertain the petitioner's prayer for quashingb of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 5. In view of this conclusion, we would have refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the reasons recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circlecum-New Assessees Circle, Bhatinda, for initiating proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the 1961 Act, but as Shri Mittal made repeated efforts to persuade us to nullify the notice solely on the ground that/the Special Judge, Delhi, has not framed charges against the petitioner, we are constrained to observe that an order, like the one passed by the Special Judge, Delhi, not framing the charge cannot be treated as conclusive, so far as the proceedings under the 1961 Act are concerned. A careful reading of the order, annexure P-12, passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 473 of 1997 shows that the Central Bureau of Investigation had not pressed for framing of charges against the petitioner on the issue of receipt of Rs. 51,24,800 because at that stage it did not have sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations. The question as to whether the petitioner could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es a contention either that no reasons were recorded or that the reasons recorded are not relevant and germane, then the Assessing Officer has to communicate the reasons to him". 54. The abovesaid judgment also reiterates that it is mandatory on thepart of the Assessing Officer to communicate the reasons along with the notice issued under Section 148(1) of the Act. The Assessee has to respond to the notice at the first instance by filing his return. If there is no discrepancy, then the Assessing Officer can close the file. In the event of any discrepancy, then the further proceedings can be continued. In such circumstances, the Assessee also is entitled to seek reasons for reopening of the assessment. Thus, the proposition laid down by the Courts are very clear that the reasons need not be communicated to the Assessee at the time of issuing the notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. 55. In the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer [(2002) 125 Taxman 963 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in paragraph-5, held as follows:- "5. .. .. .. .. ... .. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has not yet passed any orders nor formed any adverse opinion or imposed tax on the writ petitioner. Thus, there is no cause of action for filing of the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 59. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated the arguments by stating that there is no appeal provision against the notice issued under Section 148(1) of the Act. Thus, the writ petitions are maintainable. When the notice was issued not in compliance with the provisions of the Act, then the aggrieved persons have liberty to challenge the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a precondition that a notice issued under Section 148(1) should contain the reasons. In the absence of any such reason, then it is to be construed that the authorities had not formed an opinion required under Section 147(1) of the Act. The reason to believe does not mean that the reasons can be recorded subsequently or communicated to the Assessee at a later point of time. Once the reasons are recorded and the assessment is proposed to be reopened, then the Assessee is entitled to know the reasons already said to have been recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The procedures are contemplated under the Act, enabling the Assessee to avail the opportunity and defend their case in accordance with law. 64. Thus, certain aspects which is contemplated under the provisions of the Act, cannot be interpreted, so as to defeat the purpose for which such a provision was enacted by the Legislators. Constructive interpretation of the Act and the Rules are of paramount importance. The Rule of constructive interpretation requires that the possible object and the purpose to be achieved is met out by adopting not only the balancing approach, but also by providing all reasonable opportunities to the persons, who all are connected or aggrieved. 65. The purpose of the Income Tax Act, more specifically, Sections 147 and 148 of the Act, is to ensure that the Assessees, who have suppressed the fact at the time of filing of their income tax returns or if the Department is in possession of certain new materials in respect of the assessment of a particular year, then the Assessee must be informed about the decision to reopen the assessment and after such information is provided, the procedures must be followed for the purpose of concluding the reassessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On a perusal of the impugned notice dated 27.3.2015, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has stated that "whereas I have reason to believe that your income tax in respect of which you are assessable/chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-2009 as escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 71. Let us now examine whether such an information provided by the Assessing Officer is adequate and satisfying the requirements contemplated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 72. The very concept of notice is that the authorities while issuing notice should not predetermine the issues or arrive a conclusion. In the event of stating the reasons elaborately, it is to be construed that such reasonsings are recorded without providing an opportunity to the Assessee and such a procedure now argued by the writ petitioner deserves no merit consideration. 73. Thus, the notice is issued based on certain materials available with the Department and on receipt of the notice, the Assessee has got right to seek for the reasons from the Department and the Department is bound to provide reasons, enabling the Assessee to submit his explanations/objections in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmunicating all the reasons even at the initial stage of issuance of notice to the Assessee under Section 148 of the Act. The provision is a check for the Income Tax Officials. Such a check provided under the Statute to the Officials, cannot be taken undue advantaqge by the Assessee. The word "reason to believe" incorporated is to indicate the Officials that, they cannot reopen the assessment in a routine and mechanical manner. The Assessing Officer in the event of receipt of any new material or information regarding the suppression, must have a reason to believe and the reasons must be recorded in the files and thereafter issue notice to the Assessee and the Assessee on receipt of the notice is entitled to seek the reasons or otherwise from the respondents, enabling them to adjudicate the matter in the manner known to law. This being the interpretation to be adopted, the arguments as advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner deserves no consideration at all. 78. In respect of exhausting the appellate remedy available under the provisions of the Act, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has to exhaust the remedy provided under the Act, this Court cannot entertain t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner and they are having certain interests in business and family interest for their business activities and therefore, informations now received by the respondents are subject to further investigations and for scrutiny. 82. When one of the family members or one of the families have dealt with the issues in a particular manner creating an impact in respect of other family members and the transaction appears to be having some interest over the writ petitioner, who was holding high position of the Union Minister, then the Department has every reason to believe that the transactions are multifolded and the interests in respect of the persons concerned are wide, warranting further investigation and scrutiny. Therefore, the issuance of notices on mutiple choice cannot be found fault with. Such notices are certainly required for the Department to cull out the truth regarding the transactions. The very purpose and the object of the investigation is to investigate all such complex factual issues and to cull out the truth, enabling the Department to arrive a conclusion in respect of facts as well as the law applicable. 83. This being the principles to be adopted, the usage of the word "c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Communication (through its subsidiary M/s.Global Communications and a joint venture company named M/s.Deccan Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd., formed between Indian partner M/s.Sindya Securities and M/s.Global Communications) was also with the intervention of Sri Dayanidhi Maran (the assessee) and his brother Sri Kalanithi Maran. However, after the change of ownership, the applications for issuance of licenses and other requests/approvals pending since long before the Department of Telecommunications were acceded to and undue favour was given these companies after such transfer for which alleged illegal gratification was paid by M/s.Astro All Asia Networks Plc., to M/s.Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd., to Sri Kalanithi Maran, in the garb of purchase of it shares at a premium of Rs. 69.57/- per share through its subsidiary M/s.South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd., while Smt.Kavery Maran w/o. Sri Kalanithi Maran got shares of M/s.Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd @ Rs. 10/- per share. It is alleged that the active intervention of Sri Dayanidhi Maran and his brother in restricting the businesses environment of Siva Group, change of ownership to M/s.Maxis Communications and undue favour post this change was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedures and therefore, there cannot be any doubt in respect of the power of reassessment provided under the Act. 89. The Income Tax Department may not be aware of the income of the individual Assessees. They are assessing the tax based on the returns filed by the respective Assessees. Thus, the very concept of assessment is that the Officer who is scrutinising the returns did not aware of the income of an individual. For this reason only Act provides adequate power to deal with the cases, where there is evasion or suppression or otherwise by the Assessees. The very source of assessment is the returns filed by the Assessee concerned. Only after filing of the returns, the Department of Income Tax came to know about the income of the person concerned. Thus, the reassessment may arise on several occasions and on several grounds. The Income Tax Department may receive informations from many other sources. The Income Tax Department may get some external materials as well as from various other sources. It is the process of investigation. On receipt of such materials or informations from various other sources, the authorities may be in a position to reopen the assessment and impose t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer that also shall be included part and parcel of the proceedings and sufficient explanations shall be called for from the Assessee and accordingly a reassessment order can be passed. Thus, two circumstances arise after the conclusion of the assessment. Firstly, if the assessment is finalised, the reopening in respect of the escaped assessments can be made if any new materials or suppression of materials are identified. On such reopening of the assessment and during the course of the proceedings, if the Assessing Officer noticed any other materials or informations in respect of escaped assessment and the same also can be treated as part and parcel of the reassessment proceedings which is reopened. 93. On going through the said ingredients of the Section 147, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the Assessing Officer has got wider power in respect of covering the escaped assessments for the purpose of reopening the assessment. The proviso to Section 147 states that "provided further that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch procedural lapses can be taken advantage of by the Assessee only if it causes prejudice to the proceedings, if any. Such procedural lapses not causing any prejudice to the rights of the Assessee during the course of the proceedings of the reassessment, then the Assessee cannot file a writ petition, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings. Such writ petitions also cannot be entertained in view of the fact that such procedural lapses or omissions or commissions have not caused any prejudice to the interest of the Assessee nor resulted in denial of fair procedure and opportunity to the Assessee. 100. In the present writ petitions, this Court is of an opinion that undoubtedly notice was issued based on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act. However, the reasons arrived had not been communicated to the writ petitioner. But the writ petitioner requested the reasons to be furnished. Responding to the letter sent by the writ petitioner, the Assessing Officer communicated the reasons to the Assessee/writ petitioner and the objections were rejected. Thus, the writ petitioner has not been prejudiced in respect of the proceedings communicated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t with responsibility and make sure that they are reopening the assessment only based on some reasons and the materials available on record. Such provisions provided to avoid the arbitrariness on the part of the Assessing Officer cannot be taken advantage by the Assessee by contemplating the procedures that the reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer should be communicated to the Assessee along with the notice issued under Section 148(1) of the Act. Such a proposition cannot be appreciated and that is not the intention of the Act itself. Thus, the very arguments advanced in this regard by the writ petitioner deserves no merit consideration. 104. In case of M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs Income-Tax Officer And Another [1993 203 ITR 456], it has been held as follows:- "One of the purposes of Section 147, appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say "you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing". It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." 105. A careful consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
