Sec.143 (1A) of the Income Tax Act - Constitutional Validity - High court and Division Bench held that the retrospective effect given to amendment would be arbitrary and unreasonable - Apex court set aside the same and held that Section 143 (1A) can only be invoked where it is found on facts that the lesser amount stated in the return filed by the assessee is a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assessee.The burden of proving that the assessee has so attempted to evade tax is on the revenue which may be discharged by the revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it. Subject to the aforesaid construction of Section 143 (1A), we uphold the retrospective clarificatory amendment of the said Section and allow the appeals - 2015 S.C. MSK LAW REPORTS



the constitutional validity of the retrospective  amendment
      to Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Both the Single Judge
      and the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court have  held  that  the
      retrospective effect given to the amendment  would  be  arbitrary  and
      unreasonable inasmuch as the provision, being a penal provision, would
      operate harshly on assessees who have made a loss instead of a profit,
      the difference between the loss showed in  the  return  filed  by  the
      assessee and the loss  assessed  to  income  tax  having  to  bear  an
      additional income tax at the rate of 20%.

we  therefore,  hold  that
      Section 143 (1A) can only be invoked where it is found on  facts  that
      the lesser amount stated in the return filed  by  the  assessee  is  a
      result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable  by  the  assessee.
      The burden of proving that the assessee has so attempted to evade  tax
      is  on  the  revenue  which  may  be  discharged  by  the  revenue  by
      establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference
      can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted  to  evade  tax
      lawfully payable by it.  Subject  to  the  aforesaid  construction  of
      Section 143 (1A), we uphold the retrospective clarificatory  amendment
      of the said Section and allow  the  appeals.   The  judgments  of  the
      Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court are set aside.  There will be
      no order as to costs. - 2015 S.C. MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS