Ganesh Valabhai Family Trust V. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax

SCA/9600/1995

AI Insights

The case involves the Ganesh Valabhai Family Trust, which challenged a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 1983-84. The notice was based on a perceived discrepancy between the income reported by the trust and the amount reflected in a tax deduction at source (TDS) certificate. The trust argued that there was no failure to disclose material particulars as the original assessment had considered all relevant details. The court examined the reasons for reopening the assessment and found that the TDS certificate did not conclusively prove that the income had escaped assessment due to non-disclosure by the trust.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 812549 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna Metal Industries Vs. H.M. Algotar
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANISH BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR; VARUN PATEL
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Contract receipt; Income Tax; Notice; Reopening of assessment; Tax deduction at source
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

"SCA/9600/1995 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9600 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Sd/- ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ====================================== GANESH VALABHAI FAMILY TRUST - Petitioner(s) Versus DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Respondent(s) ====================================== Appearance : MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VARUN PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED SCA/9600/1995 2/7 JUDGMENT Date : 27/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 This petition challenges Notice dated 31.03.1994 (Annexure 'A') issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2 The petitioner is an association of persons, carrying on business as builder and developer. For Assessment Year 1983- 84 return of income came to be filed originally on 18.07.1984 showing total income at Nil. This was revised on 18.02.1986 declaring total income at Nil. The Assessment Order came to be framed on 31.03.1986 u/s. 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.1,37,930/-. 3 As the Notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is beyond the period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year upon Notice being issued, the respondent has placed on record copy of reasons recorded on 31.03.1994 which reads as under : “As per tax deduction certificate filed, the total amount paid to assessee for work done is stated of Rs.20,57,903/- instead the work done is shown in the return of income amounting to Rs.1,98,800/- SCA/9600/1995 3/7 JUDGMENT by the assessee. Sd/- Illegible. GANESH VALABHAI FAMILY TRUST A.Y. 1983-84. The assessee has wrongly shown the contract receipt at Rs.1,93,800/- while as per the T.D.S. Certificate, the work done is shown at Rs.20,51,903/-. Thus the assessee has not furnished fully and truly all particulars necessary for computation of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. I have, therefore, reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 1983-84. Sd/-Illegible. “ 4 Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned Notice was bad in law as there was no omission or failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material particulars necessary for the purpose of assessment. That in fact the profit and loss account, the balance sheet and the ledger account of the society i.e. Mayur Mala Co.operative Housing Society Limited clearly reflect that the receipt towards the work done during the accounting period relevant to the Assessment Year in question was only Rs.1,93,800/-, while the amount of Rs.20,66,303/- was advance received from the said society. That in fact the original assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of SCA/9600/1995 4/7 JUDGMENT the Act has specifically considered this aspect of the matter as could be seen from paragraph No.7 of the said Assessment Order, and therefore, the reasons for reopening are not germane and did not reflect that there is any omission or failure on part of the petitioner-assessee. In support of the submissions made reliance has been placed on the following decisions : [1] Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer – (1961) 41 ITR 191. [2] Income Tax Officer Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das – (1976) 103 ITR 437. [3] Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1. [4] Krishna Metal Industries Vs. H.M. Algotar – (1997) 225 ITR 853. 5 On behalf of the respondent-revenue learned Senior Standing Counsel Shri M.R.Bhatt submitted that the reopening was based on certificate issued for tax deducted at source in form No.26C as required by Provisions of Section 194C of the Act. That the copy of the said certificate dated 29.11.1982 specifically reflected in column No.4 that an amount of Rs.20,51,903/- was credited or paid in pursuance of the contract and therefore once the payment was pursuant to the contract the assessee was duty bound to disclose the same as income. The assessee having failed to do so the reopening SCA/9600/1995 5/7 JUDGMENT was justified in light of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. That the assessee had failed to furnish fully and truly all particulars necessary for computation of its income. He has also invited attention to communication dated 08.01.1991 to point out that the respondent authority had recorded in paragraph No. 2 of the said communication that the certificate for deduction of tax at source had been filed along with return of income for Assessment Year 1984-85 i.e. the subsequent year, and hence the Assessing Officer was justified in having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 6 Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is apparent that the impugned Notice seeking to reopen completed assessment for Assessment Year 1983-84 u/s. 143(3) of the Act cannot be permitted to operate. The position is well settled that in the event an assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year in question revenue has to prima facie establish that income has escaped assessment, and such escapement of income is as a result of omission or failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material particulars necessary for assessing such income. If the reasons recorded are examined it becomes clear that the basis is the SCA/9600/1995 6/7 JUDGMENT certificate of tax deduction at source. As already noticed hereinbefore, column No. 4 of the prescribed form reads “amount credited or paid in pursuance of the contract”. However, in the reasons recorded the respondent has stated that as per T.D.S. certificate the work done is shown at Rs.20,51,903/- while in the return of income the work done is shown at Rs. 1,98,800/-. The certificate of tax deduction at source does not speak of the work done. In fact u/s. 194C of the Act the obligation to deduct tax arises either at the time of payment or at the time of crediting the account of the payee. The form i.e. form No.26C does not reflect that the payment or the credit is in relation to the work actually done. In both the situations, viz. at the time of credit to the account of the payee, or in case of actual payment, it is bound to be in pursuance of the contract and hence, from the same it is not possible to draw an inference that the credit/payment is for the work actually done. As the facts of the present case show, the work done pursuant to the contract in the year under consideration is to the tune of Rs.1,98,800/- and not sum of Rs.20 lacs and odd as suggested by the respondent authority in the reasons recorded. In fact, on facts, there is no basis for recording such a decision that the total amount of Rs.20,51,903/- is payment for work done. SCA/9600/1995 7/7 JUDGMENT 7 In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening is not permissible in law considering the fact that Notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued after a period of four years from the end of Assessment Year in question in absence of any evidence to show any failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all relevant particulars of income in the return of income. Accordingly impugned Notice dated 31.03.1994 (Annexure 'A') is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (D.A. Mehta, J.) Sd/- (Z.K. Saiyed, J.) M.M.BHATT "