SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Cal) 557

High Court Of Calcutta
Aloke Chakrabarti, Sadhan Kumar Gupta
PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent
CAN 9033  Of  2002
Decided On : 08/20/2004

Advocates Appeared:
ANANDA SEN, Debi Pal, M.SEAL, MD.NIZAMUDDIN, P.K.GHOSH, R.K.Murarka, R.N.Mitra

The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully its income.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Reopening of assessment - Validity of notice - Grounds for reopening - Suppression of income - Whether Assessing Officer had reason to believe - Auditor's observation, Supreme Court's observation, and Reserve Bank of India report relied upon - Held, no suppression of income - Notice quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-company challenged the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment of the company for the years 1981-82, 1980-81, and 1973-74 on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that there was suppression of income by the company.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Assessing Officer did not have valid reasons for reopening the assessment of the appellant-company for the years 1973-74, 1980-81, and 1981-82. The notice issued by the Assessing Officer in the name of the appellant-company was held to be illegal and invalid and was struck down.

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that there was suppression of income by the assessee for the relevant assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing with the information received. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of the belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and struck down and set aside the notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, as issued by the Assessing Officer against the appellant.

SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) ALL the mandamus appeals were heard analogously as the facts and law involved in those appeals are the same and almost identical. Those three mandamus appeals arose out of the writ applications bearing No. C. O. 4959 (W) of 1989, CO. 4960 (W) of 1989 and C. O. 4961 (W) of 1989. By a single judgment dated August 8, 2002 (see [2002] 258 ITR 160), the learned single judge of this court, disposed of those three writ petitions against the appellants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned single judge, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellant.

( 2 ) THE writ applications were instituted by the appellant challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of reopening the assessment of the company for the years 1981-82, 1980-81 and for the assessment year 1973-74. By issuing the said notice, the Income-tax Officer proposed to reopen the assessment of the appellant-company for those three years. The Income-tax Officer issued those notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act on grounds which are identical in nature. The said notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on the ground as follows :"1. On the basis of information available in (a) the auditors' observations in the annual reports of Peerless for 1986 (assessment year 1987-88) and 1987-88 (15 months ending on March 31, 1988, relevant to the assessment year 1988-89) ; (b) the Supreme Court's observations in the case of RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [1987] 61 Comp Cas 663 ; and (c) the report of the Reserve Bank of India on inspection of the books of Peerless conducted in 1979, the following facts of accounting of income and liabilities of the assessee-company came to light. (1) The Social Welfare Scheme Fund is in excess of the total liability of the company towards the certificate holders. (2) The company has been retaining in the fund amounts forfeited on surrender of certificates and liabilities already provided thereon on accrual basis. Amounts in respect of unclaimed matured certificates continue to remain in the fund even after maturity. Amounts in respect of lapsed certificates also continue to remain in the fund. (3) The generous distribution of commission among the agents out of the first year's subscription and the class of investors tapped by such agents have resulted in large scale dropouts by the investors after the first year. (4) There was large scale lapsation of certificates

varying between 34. 26 per cent, and 59. 71 per cent. , during the first three years, the forfeiture range. 2. While checking the income accounting for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, it was found that the assessee has been furnishing incorrect computation of income on the basis of wrong assumption and inflated generalisation as under : (i) The provision for refund of subscription at a fixed percentage of the first year's subscription was in respect of pure contingent liability. The quantification of such liability was on the basis of flawed actuarial certificate. (ii) The provision of interest and bonus accrued at a fixed percentage of the balance in the Social Welfare Scheme Fund on accrual basis was incorrect even on actuarial basis, which the assessee was supposed to be following. 3. On a check of the abovementioned facts of the accounting of income and expenditure, it emerged that income exceeding Rs. 50,000 has escaped assessment in the following respects as a result of inadequate and incorrect statements, misleading actuarial certificate, wrong basis of calculation and suppression of relevant facts : (a) Income from forfeiture of lapsed certificates. (b) Profit under Section 41 (1) of the Income-tax Act as a result of cessation of liability already claimed as 'interest and bonus accrued. ' (c) Excess deduction claimed under the head, 'interest and bonus accrued', at a fixed percentage of the Social Welfare Sc



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top