Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sonia Gandhi & Oscar Fernandes Vs. ACIT and Rahul Gandhi Vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 8482/2018, C.M. APPL.32580-32582/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 10.09.2018
Related Assessment Year : 2011-12
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sonia Gandhi & Oscar Fernandes Vs. ACIT and Rahul Gandhi Vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court)

The entire premise of the reassessment notices in this case is that the non­disclosure of the taxing event, i.e. allotment of shares (and the absence of any declaration as to value) deprived the AO of the opportunity to look into the records. In the case of Mr. Rahul Gandhi, no doubt, the assessment originally completed, was under Section 143 (3). Had he disclosed in his returns or any related documents about the event (share acquisition) the primary fact would have been on the record; the AO’s subsequent actioh’in pursuing that aspect or letting go of it, after inquiry might well have justified the charge of a second and impermissible opinion on the same subject. However, that is not the case. The TEP and investigation reports – of subsequent vintage (after completion of Mr. Gandhi’s assessment), therefore, constituted tangible material which in terms of the ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) justified reassessment. In the case of the other two assessees (Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Oscar Fernandes) the returns filed by them were processed under Section 143 (1). Such instances are not treated as “assessments”. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co Ltd (supra) is an authority on the subject.

In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the writ petitions have to fail. It is, however, clarified that the observations with regard to the parties’ contentions is not conclusive and were recorded for the purpose of disposing of these petitions; the assessees’ rights to urge them are reserved in the income tax proceedings. W.P.(C) 8293/2018; W.P.(C) 8482/2018 and W.P.(C) 8483/2018 are accordingly dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

1. These writ petitions involve common questions which urge closely similar facts and involve decision on identical questions of law. Consequently, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031