INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS.

M/S. MADNANI ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.,

CALCUTTA

January 4, 1979

[P. N. BHAGWATI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]

Income Tax Act, 1961-S. 141(a)-Scope of-Income 1"ax Officer at first t' refused .to give reasons for beUeving that income tscaped assessment-In the seco1i'd af]ida1•it did not set out any material for the basis of his belie/- Validity of.

.. -In respect of the assessment year 1959-60 the assessee was allowed deduction of interest pa.id to creditors from whom it claimed to have borrowed montya on hundis. In January, 1968 the Income Tax Officer issued a notice to the '!SSessee under s. 147(a) of the Inoome-tax Ac~ 1961 on the ground that the transattiOns of loans represented by the hundis were bogus and no intereslwas paid by it to any of the creditors shown in the hundis, that it was WrOJ:!gly allowed asa. deduction and therefore a part of the assessee's income had escaped assessment by reason of its failure to disclose fully and truly all maferiaL facts necessary for the assessment.

In the ass_essee'er writ petition before the High Court the Income Tax Officrtr at fit&t declined to disclose the 'facts which had weighed with him in reaching the belief that income had escaped assessment on the ground that if they were disclosed jt would cause great prejudice to the interests of revenue and \vould frustrate the object of reopening the assment. Later however, realising that this stand was untenable he gave his reasons for issuing the notice.

A Smgle Judge of the High Court dismissed the assesse's writ petition.· On appeal a Division Bench held that there was no failure on the part of the ;>. a'6essee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and that in any vent the

; JnCome Tax Officer had no reason to believe that any part of the income had

/ escaped assessment by reason of such failure on the ass'essee's part.

Disniisoing the ppeal,

lIELD:

There was no failure on the part of the ,,.c., ee to discle>; e fully and truly all material facts nec?ssary for its assessment and the condition for the .appiieabitity of s. 147(a) was not satified. The notice in the circumstances was void. [910 Al

(I) In CIT v. Bur/op Dealm Ud., 79 ITR 609 thi• Court held that there was no obli&ation on the part of tho asse'8ee to disclose that the documents , produe'ed by it were bogus and that the entries made in its books Of account

W!'f• false. 1he assessee discharged its obligation by disclosing its books of accoUnts and evidence from which material facts could be discovered and it is for the Income Tax Officer to decide wh'cther the documents were genuine or false. [909 FJ

SvPREME COl'RT REPORTS (1979] 2 S.C.Jt ..

A In the instanl case the assessee could not be said to have failed to make a.

true and fulJ disclosure of the material facts by not confessing before the Income Tax Officer that the hundis and the eutrics in the books of account produced before him were bogus. [909 G]

CIT v. Bur/op Dealers Ltd. 79 lTR 609; applie<l.

(2) AU that the Income Tax Officer stated in his affidavit was that ;,, di•- cover("d that the transactions of loan again3t security of J1undis were not genuine MJd that the credits against th'e names of certain persons who were alleged to' have :Y.lvanccd the loans were bogus.

He merely stated his 6elief bnt dfd rot set out any maicrial on the basis of which h'c had arrived at such

belief. [9!0 Cl

(3) Th~. erh; tence or reason to belic\c on the part of the Income Tax Ofticcr i9 a jmrticeabJe is!'!ue and it is for th'e court to be satisfied \vhethCr in fllcf the

rncollt~ Tax Officer had ooy material on the h01is of \vhich he coufd re&Soriabfy entertain rnc h be! ief. [907 D1

CivIL APPELLATE JURISIJICTION; Civil Appeal No. 829 of 1975

From the Judgment and Order dated 11-4-74 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from original Order dated 221/70.

S. C. Manchanda, and Miss A. Subhashitri for the Appellant

V. S. Desai, Sanjay BhaJtacharya and Rathln Dass for the ReipOn-- den!.

1!: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal by 'certificate is directed against an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta allowing an appeal against a decision of a Single Judge dismissing thewtit petition of the respondent.

The facts giving rise to the appea1- F may Be briefly stated as follows :

The respondent was assessed to income-tax for the assesment year 1959-60 and certain interest paid by the respondent to creditorsfrom whom it claimed to have borrowed monies on hundis, was allowed as deductible expenditure.

The assessment of the respondent was completed on 23rd August, 1960. On or abont 25th Janililty, 1968, hoi'Vever, a Notice was isued by the Income Tax Officer ut\der Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to re-open the assessment of tire respondent for the assessment year 1959-60. The Notice was

oosly under Section 14 7 (a) since a period of four years had alfeacfy elapsed from the close of the' assessment year 1959-60 artd no- Notice could be issued under Section 147(b). The Income Tax Officer claimed that the transactions of loan represented by the liundis were bggus and no interest was paid by the respondent to any of the-

" ..

" ,,,

J.T.O. V. MADNANJ WORKS LTD. (Bhagwati, J.) 907

c.re<lit0l"s shown in the hundis and it was wrongly allowed as .a deduction and hence a pan of the income of the respondent had e8caped

iu; ssment by reason of the failure of the respondent to disclose fully

rul truly all material facts necessary for its assessment.

The responpent challenged the validity of .the Notice issued by the Income Tax

OffiCl!r by filing a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The resporulent cout; inded that there was no failure on its part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment and that in any event the Income Tax Officer had no reason to believe that .any part of the income of tlic respondent had escaped assessment by

reaspn of such failure on the part of the respondent.

The Income Tax Officer in the affidavit in reply filed by him on 5th December, 1968 declined to disclose the facts which had weighed with him in reaching the belief that the income of the respondent had escaped

al>Sessment by reason of its failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, on the ground that if such facts were disclosed to the respondent, it would cause great prejudice to the interests of the Revenue and would frustrate the object o[ re-opening the assessment.

This was obviously an untenable stand because the existence of reason to believe on the part of the Income Tax Officer was a justiceable issue and it was for the court to be satisfied whether in fact the Income Tax Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment hy reason of failure of the respondent to make a full and true disclosure.

The Income Tax Officer realising this position filed a further affidavit on 27th January, 1970 stating as. follows :

"In January 1968 I was the Income Tax Ollicer 'I' Ward, Hundi Circle, Calcutta.

On or about the 25th January 1968 I issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the petitioner. My reasons for issuing such notice were these.

In the course of assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 1963-64 it was discovered that various items shown as loans against the security of bundis in the petitioner's books of account for the previous year relevant to assessment year 1959-60 were in fact fictitious.

Credire against the. names of certain persons. a~ having advanced Joans viz.

Arnarlal Moolchand, Girdharidas, Reghoomal, Murlidhar, Kanhaiyal:tl

and Deudaram Basdeo in the petitioner's books were found not to be genuine.

It appeared during assessment proceedings for 1963-64 that none ofii such loans were genuine.

In the premises, it appe\U'ed to me that 111e petitioner bad failed to disclose fully and truly all material tacts necessary for its assessment, and a portion of the petitioner's income had escaped assessment by reason of such failure".

D r

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1979} 2 S.C.R.

The writ petition was heard by a Single Judge of the ffigh Court and he took the view that .the affidavit of the Income Tax Officer dated 27th January, 1970 clearly showed that he had reason to believe that incom~ of the respondent had escaped assessment by reason of its failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts and he ac- B cordingly dismissed the writ petition.

The respondent preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the ffigh Court disagreeing with the view taken by the Single Judge held that there was no failure on the part of the respondent to disclose fully and truly all material facts and in any event there was no material on the basis of which it could be

I!'

said that the Income Tax Officer had reason to believe that any part of the income had escaped assessment by reason of such failure on the part of the respondent.

The Division Bench accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the Notice for re-opening the assessment.

The Income Tax Officer thereupon preferred the present appeal to this Court after obtaining a certificate from the High Court.

The present case is clearly covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta v. Bur/op Dealers Ltd.(') There the assessee in the course of its original assessment to incometax for the assessment year 1949-50 had produced a partnership agreement with one Ratiram Tansukhrai and claimed that the profits earned by it from H. Manory Ltd. had been divided between itself and Ratiram Tansukhrai under the partnership agreement and its one-half share of the profit, namely, Rs. 87,937 /- was the only amount assessable to tax in respect of this source.

The Income Tax Officer accepted the partnership agreement and assessed the assessee only on the profit of .._ Rs. 87,937 /-. It appears that while making assessment for the assessment year 1950-51 the Income Tax Officer found that the partnership agreement between the assessee and Ratiram Tansukhrai was a got up device to reduce the profit received from H. Manory Ltd. and the assessee was, therefore, liable to tax on the entire amount of profit coming from H. Manory Ltd. This view taken by the Income Tax Officer was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Tribunal. The High Court also on a reference agreed with the view of the Tribunal.

The Income Tax Officer thereupon issued a Notice under Section 34(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act to re-open the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1949-50 in order to bring to tax the further amount of Rs. 87,937 /- being the half share of the profit from H. Manory Ltd. alleged to have been paid to atiram Tansukhrai under the partnership agreement.

The assessee con-

(1) [19711 79 I.T.R. 609

• ¥ •

I.T.O. v. MADNANI WOR.ICS LTD. (Bhagwati, /.) 909

tended that it had produced all the relevant accounts and documents necessary for completing the assessment and it was under no obligation to inform the Income Tax Officer about the true nature of the transaction and there was accordingly no failure on its part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment.

This contention was negatived by the Income Tax Officer and the income of the assessee was re-assessed by adding Rs. 87,937 /- to the income returned by the assessee.

The Appellate Assistant Commisioner confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer on appeal, but on further appea], tbe Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and held that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a. full and true disclosure of the material facts and hence the Income Tax Officer was not justified in seeking to re-open the assessment under Section 34(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act.

The Revenue applied to the Tribunal for a reference but the application was rejected and the High Court also dismissed the application of the Revenue for calling for a reference from the Tribunal.

The Revenue thereupon preferred an appeal to this Court by special leave.

The appeal was rejected by this Court on the ground that the assessee had disclosed all its books of account and evidence from which material facts could be discovered and it was under no obligation to inform the Income Tax Officer about the possible inferences which might be raised against him and hence there was no failure on its part to disclose the preliminary facts rele--

vant to the assessment which would invite the applicability of Section 34(1)(a)., It will thus be seen that according to this judgment, there was no obligation on the assessee to disclose that the partnership agreement ptoduced by it was bogus and that the entries made by it in its books of accounts were false.

The assessee discharged the obligation which lay upon it by disclosing its books of account and evidence from which material facts could be discovered and it was for the Income Tax Officer to decide whether the documents produced by the assessee were genuine or false. Here also the respondent produced. all the hundis on the strength of which it had obtained loans from creditors as also entries in the books of account showing payment of interest and it was for the Income Tax Officer to investigate and determine whether these documents were genuine or not.

The respondent could qot be said to have failed to make a true and full disclosure of the material facts by not confessing before the Income Tax Officer that the hundis and the entries in the books of account produced by it were bogus.

We do not see any distinction at all between Bur/op Dealers case (supra) and the present one and the language of Section 147(a) being identical with that of Section 34(1) (a), the ratio of the decision in Bur/op Dealers case (supra} must govem the decision of the present case. We

SUPJU!MB COURT REPORTS

[1979] 2 S.C.R.

A must, therefore, hold that there was no failure on the part of the respondent to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment and the condition for the applicability of Section 147 (a) was not satisfied.

We may also point out that though it was contended in the Writ B Petition that the Income Tax Officer could have no reason to believe • that any part of the income of the respondent had escaped assessment 1 by reason of its failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts, the Income Tax Offioor did not disclose in his affidavit any material on the basis of which it could be said that he had come to the requisite belief.

All that the Income Tax Officer stated in his afidavit C was that he discovered that the transactions of loan against secnrity

of hundis were not genuine and that the credits against the names of certain persons who were alleged to have advanoed loans were bogus.

The Income Tax Officer merely stated his belief but did not set out an} material on the basis of which he had arrived at such belief so D that the Court could decide for itself whether there was any material on the basis of which the Income Tax Officer could reasonably entertain such belief. We are, therefore, not at all satisfied on the affidavit that the lncom!l Tax Officer had rcas0n to believe that a part of the income of the respondent bad escaped assessment by reason of its failure to make a true and full disclosure of the material facts.

E _The Notice under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act for re-opening the assessment must in the circumstances be held to be void.

We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.

P.B.R.

Appeal dimiisud.