• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
search-icon

Top Stories

HomeNewsFrom the Courts
27 Sep 2021 5:30 AM GMT

Madras High Court: No Tangible Material For Reopening Of Assessment After Years To Establish Assessee's Failure Of Disclosure

By Legal Era
Madras High Court: No Tangible Material For Reopening Of Assessment After Years To Establish Assessees Failure Of Disclosure

Madras High Court: No Tangible Material For Reopening Of Assessment After Years To Establish Assessee's Failure Of Disclosure The Madras High Court upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the assessment made u/S. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, by agreeing that there was no tangible material for reopening of the assessment after years to establish that...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

Madras High Court: No Tangible Material For Reopening Of Assessment After Years To Establish Assessee's Failure Of Disclosure

The Madras High Court upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the assessment made u/S. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, by agreeing that there was no tangible material for reopening of the assessment after years to establish that the Assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all materials.

The matter titled Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mr. John Ettimootil Samuel, was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, comprising Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup.

The present tax case appeal was filed by the Appellant – Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein it set aside the assessment made u/S. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 by holding that there was no failure on the part of the Respondent – Assessee to disclose fully and truly the details and particulars necessary for completing the assessment u/S. 143(3) of the Act.

The Respondent – Assessee had questioned the reopening of the assessment, after a period of four years without any tangible material to establish that the Assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all facts. It was further contended by the Respondent – Assessee that all necessary details required for completing the assessment had been furnished.

The Court agreed with the Appellate Tribunal on the fact that the reopening of the assessment was after years and there was no tangible material to establish that the Assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all materials, which were required for assessment at the first instance.

The Court further pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal noted that all necessary details required for completing the assessment including copies of the sale deed, were furnished by the Respondent – Assessee.

The Court therefore, concluded that there was no question of law and that the reopening of the assessment could not have been made in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus, upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Click to download here Full Judgment

Next Story
TAGS:
  • #Madras High Court
  • #Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
  • #Income Tax Act 1962
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X