I disclosed my hundi loans in the return and the officer accepted them. He now says the same lenders were bogus in the next year. Can he reopen?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that a false disclosure is not a full and true disclosure. Whether a loan shown in the return is genuine is itself a material fact, not an inference to be drawn by the officer, so an assessee who records bogus loans has failed the duty section 147(a) imposes. That the officer could have investigated at the time, and did so in the following year, does not relieve the assessee of that duty. At the notice stage the enquiry is only whether reasonable grounds exist, not whether escapement is proved. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.B. Majmudar, JJ (judgment by Jeevan Reddy, J)) on 1996-07-16, reported as AIR 1996 SC 3409; (1996) 9 SCC 534; (1996) 221 ITR 538; (1996) 87 Taxman 315; 1996 AIR SCW 2926. It bears on section 147, section 148, section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters.
This is the decision that settles how Calcutta Discount works when the department alleges bogus credits. The taxpayer's usual argument - I disclosed the loans, the officer could have checked them, and finality must mean something - is answered on its own ground: the protection of finality avails the assessee who has disclosed fully and truly, and not others. The Court approves Phool Chand Bajranglal and confines Burlop Dealers to its facts, and it rejects the reading of Chhugamal Rajpal and Lakhmani Mewal Das as laying down anything contrary to Calcutta Discount. It also draws the line the writ court must respect: sufficiency of the reasons is not for the court, but the assessee may show the belief was not bona fide or rested on vague, irrelevant or non-specific information.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
In its return for assessment year 1959-60 the assessee company showed hundi loans totalling Rs 8,53,298 from a number of persons, and the Income-tax Officer accepted the claim. In the assessment for 1960-61 the assessee showed hundi loans of over Rs 17 lakh. This time the officer investigated, found many of them bogus and some of the alleged lenders to be near relations of directors or principal shareholders, and added Rs 11,51,275 as income from undisclosed sources. Because of the similarity of the claims and of the persons said to have advanced the loans, he issued a notice under section 148 for 1959-60, recording reasons that similar loans were noticed for that year and that income had escaped assessment by reason of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly. The assessee moved the Calcutta High Court at once. A single judge allowed the writ petition; a Division Bench allowed the Revenue's appeal. During the hearing the Supreme Court called for the record, and the officer produced a chart showing that ten persons who had lent Rs 3,80,000 of the 1959-60 total were common to both years and had been found bogus in the later assessment.
The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000 consolidated, and the connected appeals were dismissed on the same reasoning without costs. On these facts it was impossible to say the officer had no reasonable ground to believe that there had been no full and true disclosure and that income had escaped assessment. Whether a loan said to have been taken is true or false is itself a material fact, not an inference to be drawn from given facts. An assessee who has created and recorded bogus loans cannot say he disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That the officer could have investigated the assertion at the time, and did so in the following year, does not relieve the assessee of the obligation the statute places on him. The Court stressed that at this stage the enquiry is only whether reasonable grounds exist for the officer's belief, not whether the failure and the escapement are established. It agreed with Phool Chand Bajranglal, including that Burlop Dealers must be confined to its own facts.
The Court began with the safeguards. Section 147 requires reason to believe; section 148(2) requires the reasons to be recorded; section 151 requires the Commissioner's satisfaction on those reasons before a notice beyond the shorter period. The power is therefore not unbridled and was hedged about to save assessees from mechanical reopening - but, the Court said, that protection avails only those who disclose all material facts truly and fully. It then took the assessee's duty from the Constitution Bench in Calcutta Discount: the assessee must disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts, and the duty does not extend beyond that. The question was whether the genuineness of a loan is a primary fact or an inference. The Court held it is a primary fact. It follows that recording a bogus loan is not an incomplete disclosure to be cured by the officer's diligence; it is a false one, and every disclosure is not a true and full disclosure - a partial disclosure may very often be misleading. Against that duty the reasons recorded were plainly enough: loans found bogus in the succeeding year, from lenders the officer had tallied across both years, and the chart later produced confirmed ten common names. The Court also fixed the limits of judicial review at this stage, adopting Phool Chand Bajranglal: the belief is the officer's, so its sufficiency is not for the court, but the assessee may show it was not bona fide or rested on vague, irrelevant or non-specific information, and the court may ask whether the material had a rational connection or live link with the belief formed.
Nor can anyone suggest that a false disclosure satisfies the requirement of full and true disclosure.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Supreme Court held that a false disclosure is not a full and true disclosure. Whether a loan shown in the return is genuine is itself a material fact, not an inference to be drawn by the officer, so an assessee who records bogus loans has failed the duty section 147(a) imposes. That the officer could have investigated at the time, and did so in the following year, does not relieve the assessee of that duty. At the notice stage the enquiry is only whether reasonable grounds exist, not whether escapement is proved. The appeals were dismissed with costs. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.B. Majmudar, JJ (judgment by Jeevan Reddy, J)) and bears on section 147, section 148, section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as AIR 1996 SC 3409; (1996) 9 SCC 534; (1996) 221 ITR 538; (1996) 87 Taxman 315; 1996 AIR SCW 2926. This is the decision that settles how Calcutta Discount works when the department alleges bogus credits. The taxpayer's usual argument - I disclosed the loans, the officer could have checked them, and finality must mean something - is answered on its own ground: the protection of finality avails the assessee who has disclosed fully and truly, and not others. The Court approves Phool Chand Bajranglal and confines Burlop Dealers to its facts, and it rejects the reading of Chhugamal Rajpal and Lakhmani Mewal Das as laying down anything contrary to Calcutta Discount. It also draws the line the writ court must respect: sufficiency of the reasons is not for the court, but the assessee may show the belief was not bona fide or rested on vague, irrelevant or non-specific information. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Attack the reasons recorded, not the merits: show there was no material, or no rational connection between the material and the belief, or that the belief was not bona fide.
In its return for assessment year 1959-60 the assessee company showed hundi loans totalling Rs 8,53,298 from a number of persons, and the Income-tax Officer accepted the claim. In the assessment for 1960-61 the assessee showed hundi loans of over Rs 17 lakh. This time the officer investigated, found many of them bogus and some of the alleged lenders to be near relations of directors or principal shareholders, and added Rs 11,51,275 as income from undisclosed sources. Because of the similarity of the claims and of the persons said to have advanced the loans, he issued a notice under section 148 for 1959-60, recording reasons that similar loans were noticed for that year and that income had escaped assessment by reason of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly. The assessee moved the Calcutta High Court at once. A single judge allowed the writ petition; a Division Bench allowed the Revenue's appeal. During the hearing the Supreme Court called for the record, and the officer produced a chart showing that ten persons who had lent Rs 3,80,000 of the 1959-60 total were common to both years and had been found bogus in the later assessment. The matter was decided on 1996-07-16 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.B. Majmudar, JJ (judgment by Jeevan Reddy, J)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000 consolidated, and the connected appeals were dismissed on the same reasoning without costs. On these facts it was impossible to say the officer had no reasonable ground to believe that there had been no full and true disclosure and that income had escaped assessment. Whether a loan said to have been taken is true or false is itself a material fact, not an inference to be drawn from given facts. An assessee who has created and recorded bogus loans cannot say he disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That the officer could have investigated the assertion at the time, and did so in the following year, does not relieve the assessee of the obligation the statute places on him. The Court stressed that at this stage the enquiry is only whether reasonable grounds exist for the officer's belief, not whether the failure and the escapement are established. It agreed with Phool Chand Bajranglal, including that Burlop Dealers must be confined to its own facts.
The Court began with the safeguards. Section 147 requires reason to believe; section 148(2) requires the reasons to be recorded; section 151 requires the Commissioner's satisfaction on those reasons before a notice beyond the shorter period. The power is therefore not unbridled and was hedged about to save assessees from mechanical reopening - but, the Court said, that protection avails only those who disclose all material facts truly and fully. It then took the assessee's duty from the Constitution Bench in Calcutta Discount: the assessee must disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts, and the duty does not extend beyond that. The question was whether the genuineness of a loan is a primary fact or an inference. The Court held it is a primary fact. It follows that recording a bogus loan is not an incomplete disclosure to be cured by the officer's diligence; it is a false one, and every disclosure is not a true and full disclosure - a partial disclosure may very often be misleading. Against that duty the reasons recorded were plainly enough: loans found bogus in the succeeding year, from lenders the officer had tallied across both years, and the chart later produced confirmed ten common names. The Court also fixed the limits of judicial review at this stage, adopting Phool Chand Bajranglal: the belief is the officer's, so its sufficiency is not for the court, but the assessee may show it was not bona fide or rested on vague, irrelevant or non-specific information, and the court may ask whether the material had a rational connection or live link with the belief formed. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Nor can anyone suggest that a false disclosure satisfies the requirement of full and true disclosure."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1996-07-16 and is reported as AIR 1996 SC 3409; (1996) 9 SCC 534; (1996) 221 ITR 538; (1996) 87 Taxman 315; 1996 AIR SCW 2926. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 147, section 148, section 151, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000 consolidated, and the connected appeals were dismissed on the same reasoning without costs. On these facts it was impossible to say the officer had no reasonable ground to believe that there had been no full and true disclosure and that income had escaped assessment. Whether a loan said to have been taken is true or false is itself a material fact, not an inference to be drawn from given facts. An assessee who has created and recorded bogus loans cannot say he disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That the officer could have investigated the assertion at the time, and did so in the following year, does not relieve the assessee of the obligation the statute places on him. The Court stressed that at this stage the enquiry is only whether reasonable grounds exist for the officer's belief, not whether the failure and the escapement are established. It agreed with Phool Chand Bajranglal, including that Burlop Dealers must be confined to its own facts. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters, on section 147, section 148, section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.B. Majmudar, JJ (judgment by Jeevan Reddy, J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not argue that the officer could have investigated the credit at the original assessment - the Court holds that this does not shift the assessee's own duty of true disclosure. Where the reopening rests on a finding in another year, ask for the material linking that year to yours; here the Court itself called for a chart showing the ten lenders common to both years. Keep the two stages apart in argument: at the notice stage you are contesting reasonable grounds for belief, and the genuineness of the credits is fought later in the reassessment.
Still good law. I read the whole judgment to its dismissal of the appeals. It applies the Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta Discount and agrees with Phool Chand Bajranglal. I checked no later authority in this session; the reassessment provisions have since been recast more than once, so the procedural framework it describes is not the current one. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment sets out sections 147, 148 and 151 as they stood for assessment year 1959-60, including the distinction between clauses (a) and (b) of section 147 and the eight-year limit, none of which survives in that form; a reader must work from the current provisions for procedure and limitation. The Court noted that no argument was addressed on whether a notice good for some loans but not others is severable, so that point is left open. The harvested text is a poor transcription with figures inconsistent in places - the addition for 1960-61 appears as both Rs 11,15,275 and Rs 11,51,275. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000 consolidated, and the connected appeals were dismissed on the same reasoning without costs. On these facts it was impossible to say the officer had no reasonable ground to believe that there had been no full and true disclosure and that income had escaped assessment. Whether a loan said to have been taken is true or false is itself a material fact, not an inference to be drawn from given facts. An assessee who has created and recorded bogus loans cannot say he disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That the officer could have investigated the assertion at the time, and did so in the following year, does not relieve the assessee of the obligation the statute places on him. The Court stressed that at this stage the enquiry is only whether reasonable grounds exist for the officer's belief, not whether the failure and the escapement are established. It agreed with Phool Chand Bajranglal, including that Burlop Dealers must be confined to its own facts.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?