NDLI: M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Income Tax Act 1961
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Direct Tax Laws (amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988) Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for Consideration: Reopening of a concluded assessment-reassessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, legally sustainable or bad in law.Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 147 and 148 – Reopening of a concluded assessment-reassessment u/s. 147 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 – Sustainability: Held: On the basis of the balance sheet submitted by the assessee before the Bank for obtaining credit, the assessing officer upon a comparison of the same with a subsequent balance sheet filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 concluded that there was escapement of income and initiated reassessment proceedings – Dehors such balance sheet, there were no other material in the possession of the assessing officer to hold that income of the assessee for the assessment years had escaped assessment – When the assessee had not made any false declaration, it was nothing but a subsequent subjective analysis of the assessing officer that income of the assessee for the assessment years was much higher than what was assessed and thus, had escaped assessment – This was a mere change of opinion which cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment – Returns for the assessment years were not accompanied by the regular books of account – Such return may be a defective one but certainly not invalid return – Furthermore, in none of the assessment years, the assessing officer had issued any declaration that the returns were defective – Assessee asserted both in the pleadings and in the oral hearing that though it could not file regular books of account along with the returns for the assessment years because of seizure by the department, nonetheless the returns of income were accompanied by tentative profit and loss account and other details of income which were duly enquired into by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings – Thus, the tribunal justified in holding that the reassessments for the assessment years not justified – High Court erred in reversing the findings of the tribunal – Order of the High Court set aside and that of the tribunal restored. [Paras 41-45] Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 147 – Income escaping assessment – ‘Full and true disclosure’ – Meaning of: Held: Word ‘disclosure’ means to disclose, reveal, unravel or bring to notice –Word ‘true’ qualifies a fact or averment as correct, exact, actual, genuine or honest – Word ‘full’ means complete – True disclosure of concealed income must relate to the assessee concerned – Full disclosure, in the context of financial documents, means that all material or significant information should be disclosed – Thus, the meaning of ‘full and true disclosure’ is the voluntary filing of a return of income that the assessee earnestly believes to be true – Production of books of accounts or other material evidence that could ordinarily be discovered by the assessing officer does not amount to a true and full disclosure. [Para 31] Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 147 – Income escaping assessment – Expression “change of opinion” in terms of assessment proceedings: Held: Expression “change of opinion” would imply formulation of opinion and then a change thereof – In terms of assessment proceedings, it means formulation of belief by the assessing officer resulting from what he thinks on a particular question – Thus, before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change of opinion, the court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable – If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the assessing officer any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed reassessment proceedings. [Para 36] Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 139 – Return of income – Obligation on assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment: Held: s.139 places an obligation upon every person to furnish voluntarily a return of his total income if such income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax – Assessee is under further obligation to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year fully and truly – While the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary and relevant facts necessary for assessment, it does not extend beyond this – Once the primary facts are disclosed by the assessee, the burden shifts onto the assessing officer. [Para 41] s. 139 – Return of income – When to be treated as invalid return: Held: U/s. 139(9), where the assessing officer considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective, he may intimate the defect to the assessee and give him an opportunity to rectify the defect within fifteen days from the date of such intimation or within such further period, the assessing officer may in his discretion allow – Burden is on the assessing officer – If he does not exercise the discretion, the return of income cannot be construed as a defective return – If the defect is not rectified within the specified period or within the further period as may be allowed, the return shall be treated as an invalid return – In such an eventuality, it would be construed that the assessee had failed to furnish the return. [Para 24.1-24.2]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 53
Petitioner	M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam
Respondent	Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kottayam
SCR	[2024] 1 S.C.R. 642
Judgement Date	2024-01-23
Case Number	8580-8582

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

Please Log-in to view this content

Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Daman! Brothers

M/s South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Classic Binding Industries

M/s Sundaram Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s. Shelly Products and Anr.

M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

M/s Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

S. Rm. M.ct. M. Tiruppani Trust Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Daman! Brothers

M/s South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Classic Binding Industries

M/s Sundaram Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s. Shelly Products and Anr.

M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

M/s Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

S. Rm. M.ct. M. Tiruppani Trust Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam