TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n April 2, 1967, and the Collector, Ratlam, determined the compensation for the lands at Rs. 1,28,400 plus solatium at 15%. The petitioner sought a reference against the award before the District judge, Ratlam, and the amount of compensation was enhanced by the District judge to Rs. 17,04,038. The District judge also directed payment of interest at 6% amounting to Rs. 80,958. The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged this order before the High Court and the High Court, vide judgment dated April 26, 1977, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 12,78,328 and awarded interest at 6% per annum from February 2, 1967, to May 13,1977. During the pendency of the litigation, the petitioner did not receive any interest from the State Government. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said officer framed the assessments for the relevant assessment years. The action taken under s. 147 of the I.T. Act and under s. 17 of the W.T. Act was thus without jurisdiction inasmuch as it amounted only to a change of opinion on the part of the officer concerned as regards the taxability of the income and wealth of the assessee and there was no default on the part of the petitioner which could warrant an action under the above provisions of the I.T. and W.T. Acts. It was further submitted that the petitioner maintained his accounts on cash basis and, therefore, the interest on the amount of compensation which had not been paid was otherwise also not includible in his income. The respondents-ITO/WTO, Ratlam, in their returns (affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot received and the matter was " in dispute ". Similarly, in the wealth-tax returns for assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the assessee had disclosed in the relevant column " Part IV " that the compensation due from the Government on the agricultural lands acquired was " not determined and under dispute ". For reopening income-tax assessments for assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, the ITO gave common reasons. Copies are filed as annex. R-5. The reason which led the ITO to believe that income had escaped assessment was that " the assessee had been allowed interest by the District judge on the compensation awarded and the matter was pending in the High Court. The assessee will receive interest @ 6% per annum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d other High Courts. The, principle laid down was that " it was the duty of the assessee-company to disclose all the facts which had a bearing on the question. But whether the assessee had the intention to make business profit as distinguished from the intention to change the form of investments was really an inference to be drawn by the assessing authority from the material facts. The law did not require the assessee to state the conclusion that could reasonably be drawn from the primary facts " in Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR I (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the Allahabad High Court, held thus (headnote): " After discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
