9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (4) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not validly initiated and in setting aside the same ? " The facts which led to the applications for reference are briefly these. The respondent submitted wealth-tax returns for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59. For the year 1957-58 the respondent claimed that an amount of Rs. 51 lakhs and odd, being provision for taxation, and another amount of Rs. 37 lakhs and odd, being provision for contingencies, being ascertained liability, should be allowed as deduction from the total wealth. For the year 1958-59, the respondent claimed Rs. 31 lakhs and odd being provision for contingencies as ascertained liability as deduction from the total wealth. Assessment for the year 1957-58 was completed on December 30, 1957, and the Wealth-tax Officer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Assistant Commissioner sustained the decision of the Wealth-tax Officer with respect to the reassessments in question. The case of the respondent was that the Wealth-tax Officer had no information on the basis of which he could proceed to reassess the net wealth of the respondent and in this connection reliance was placed on the words " in consequence of any information in his possession " appearing in section 17(b) of the Act. The respondent then went in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and his contention there was that the issue of notices under section 17(b) of the Act was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion on the part of the Wealth-tax Officer, as at that time there was no information in the possession of the Wealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to point to any specific information which came into the possession of the Wealth-tax Officer and which could lead him to issue the notices in question. The Tribunal therefore held that the reassessment proceedings under section 17(b) for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 were not validly initiated and set them aside. Thereupon the appellant applied to the Tribunal for making references under section 27(1) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the applications. The appellant then applied to the High Court under section 27(3) of the Act for direction to the Tribunal to state a case. The High Court however rejected the applications summarily. Thereupon, the appellant applied to this court for special leave which was granted, and that is how the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourts had expressed divergent views on the point. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the precise question left undecided by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh's case arises in the present case, and as there are divergent views taken by the High Courts on that question, a question of law did arise on the order of the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal should have made a reference. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sir Mahomed Yusuf Ismail it was held by the Bombay High Court as far back as 1943 that under section 34 a mere change of opinion on the same facts or on a question of law or the mere discovery of a mistake of law is not sufficient information within the meaning of section 34 and that in order to take act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... someone else gave that information to the Income-tax Officer or whether he informed himself was immaterial. " In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar the Madras High Court again held that " the discovery of the Income-tax Officer after he had made the assessments that he had committed an error in not including the minor's income in the father's assessment was 'information' obtained after the assessment, and even though all the facts were in the original records, the case was covered by section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act and the reassessment was not invalid, and this was not a case of mere change of opinion on the same facts but a case of getting information that income had escaped assessment. " In Canara Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances will be sufficient for the purpose of section 34(1)(b) and will justify the issue of a notice thereunder. It may be added that after the decission of this court in Maharajkumar Kamal Singh's case it is now settled that " information in section 34(1)(b) included information as to the true and correct state of the law, and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions " and that such information for the purpose of section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act need not be confined only to cases where the Income-tax Officer discovers as a fact that income has escaped assessment. To that extent the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sir Mahomed Yusuf Ismail has been overruled. That is why the Appellate Tribunal stated in its d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
