Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Director's letter and annexed documents provided definite information, enabling the Income Tax Officer to have reason to believe that the fair market value of the shares was higher than the sale price and that income had escaped assessment, rendering the notices under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act and Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act valid.

Summary

The Income Tax Officer had completed assessments for 1969-70 and 1971-72, accepting the assessee's claim of a long‑term capital loss on the sale of shares. Later, a letter from the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Inspection, supported by documentary evidence, indicated that the fair market value of those shares was far higher than the sale price and that the quotations shown by the assessee were manipulated, causing income to escape assessment. The Officer issued reassessment notices under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Rajasthan High Court quashed the notices, holding that the officer had no reason to believe income escaped assessment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the information in the letter and annexures constituted definite information, giving the officer reason to believe that income had escaped assessment; the rapid issuance of the notice did not show a lack of deliberation. Consequently, the reassessment notices were valid and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the information contained in the Deputy Director's letter and annexures qualifies as 'definite information' sufficient to invoke Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the Income Tax Officer, having received such information, had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
Whether the issuance of the reassessment notice the next day after receipt of the information indicates a failure to apply mind.
Whether the notices issued under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 are valid on the same facts.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 147(b)
Wealth Tax Act, 1957s. 17

Subjects

income tax reassessmentSection 147(b)definite informationshare valuationcapital losswealth taxnotice validitySupreme Court

Judgment

A INCOME TAX OFFICER, JODHPUR
v.
PURUSHOTTAl\.f DAS BANGUR AND ANR.

JANUARY 22, 1997
B
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

Income Tax Act, 1961- S.147 (b)-Reassessment-Notice for reassess-
ment by the Income Tax Officer to the assessee, on the basis of definite
C infonnation received by him, that some income of the assessee escaped as- -
~essment-Held: the Income Tax Officer could issue notice under Section
147(b) on the basis of definite infomwtion received by him-Notice sent by
Income Tax Officer, the next day of receiving infomiation-Held, could not
be construed as non-applicali'on of mind by the Income Tax Officer to the
infonnation received.
D
Wealth Tax Act, 1957--Sec. 17-Notice of reassessment issued under
Section 17 on the basis of s11bseq11ent definite infonnation-Held: Valid.

The Income Tax Offic:er completed the assessment for the assess·
ment years 1969-70 and 1971-72 accepting the respondent- asses sees' claim
E that they had suffered long-term capital loss on sale of shares of a
particular company. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer received a letter
from the Deputy Director, Directorate of Inspection (Investigation), Spe·
cial Cell, New Delhi with definite information supported with documentary
proof that the fair market value of the share was higher than the sale price
F and the so-called market quiotations shown by the assessees at the time of
the original assessment we1re manipulated ones, as a result of which the
income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Income Tax Officer
issued notices to the re~pondents under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 informing the assessee that having reason to believe that their
G income chargeable to tax for assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72 had
escaped assessment, he proposed to reassess their income for those years.
Notices under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were also issued to
the assessees for the same reasons. The assessees filed writ petitions
challenging the notices. The High Court quashed the notices holding that
the Income Tax Officer had no reasons to reassess the assessees. Ag-
H grieved, the Revenue filed the present appeals.
480
I.T.O. v. P.D. BANGUR 481

Allowing the appeals, this Court A
Held: 1. On the basis of the information contained in the Deputy
.
Director's letter and the documents annexed to the same, the Income Tax
Officer could have had reason to believe that the fair market value of the
shares was for more than the sale price and the market quotations from
Calcutta Stock Association shown by the assessee at the time of the B
Original assessment were manipulated ones and as a result income char-
geable to tax had escaped assessment. It could not be said that the infor-
mation that was contained in the said letter was not definite information
and that the said letter could not be acted upon by the Income Tax Officer
for taking action under Section 147 (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
[488-A-B]
c
2. Merely because the impugned notice was sent on the next day after
receipt of the letter of the Deputy Director, it could not be inferred that the
Income Tax Officer did not apply his mind to the information contained in
the said letter. On the basis of the said facts and information contained in D
the letter, the Income Tax Officer, without any further investigation, could
have formed the opinion that there was reason to believe that the income
of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. [488-D-E]

3. For the same reasons the judgment of the High Court quashing the
notices issued to the respondent assessees under Section 17 of the Wealth E
Tax Act, also can not be upheld and is set aside. [489-B]

Purshottom Das Bangur v. Income Tax Officer, (1980) 126 ITR 580,
reversed.

j CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3041-43 F
of 1983 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.79 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 1177, 1182/74 and 57 of 1975.

Harish Chandra, B.S. Ahuja and B.K. Prasad for the Appellant. G

Ms. Gauri Rastogi for the Respondents.

The .T udgment of the Court was delivered :

CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 3041-43 OF 1983. H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R. I
A These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan
High Court dated November 29, 1979, whereby the Writ Petitions filed' by
~-J
the respondents have been allowed and the notices issued under Section
147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
have been quashed.

B
C.A. No. 3041 of 1983 arises out Writ Petition No. 1177 of 1974 filed
by Purushottam Das Bangur, respondent No. 1. It relates to th.e assessment
of the said respondent for the assessment year 1969-70. During the ac-
counting year relevant to the sajd assessment year the assessee claimed that
he had suffered long term capital loss on sale of shares of Maharaja Shree
C Umaid Mills Ltd. during the period March 5, 1969 and March 30, 1969 at
the price quoted in the Official Report and quotations of the Calcutta
Stock Exchange Association. According to the assesstoe, he had incurred a
loss of Rs. 1,57,792. The said claim of the assessee was accepted by the
Income Tax Officer, 'C' Ward, Jodhpur while making the assessment and
D the same was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer received a letter dated March 21,
1974 from Shri S.M. Bagai, Deputy Director, Directorate of Inspector
(Investigation), Special Cell, New Delhi, wherein it was stated that on
information obtained from the Bombay Stock Exchange Directory the book
value per enquiry share of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. rose from Rs.
E 318.55 for the year ending December· 21, 1965 to Rs. 401 for the year
ending December 31, 1970 anc!. the earning per share rose from Rs. 8.37
per share to Rs. 44 per share dming the above mentioned period and that
the dividend percentage also rose from 2% to 10% for the same period,
but the quotations of the sharer, in Calcutta Stock Exchange fell from Rs.
F 168 to Rs. 85 per share during this period. In the said letter of Shri Bagai
it was stated that it was clear from these facts that the quotations appearing
are as a res ult of certain manipulated transactions between the group and
in cannot be said that to reflect the fair market value of the company.
Alongwith the said letter Shri Bilgai had annexed the information which
was gathered by him on the basis of the Bombay Stock Exchange Directory
G and other information. The said letter of Shri Bagai was received by the
Income Tax Officer on March 26, 1974. On March 27, 1974 he issued a
notice under Section 147(b) of the Act whereby the assessee was inf?rmed
that the Income Tax Officer had the reason to believe that assessee's
income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1969-70 had escaped
H assessment and, therefore, the assessing authority proposed to reassess the

j
LT.O. v. P.D. BANGUR 483

income for the said assessment year and the assessee was required to A
deliver to him a return in the prescribed form of his income for the said
year. Feeling aggrieved by the said notice, the assessee filed Writ Petition
No. 1177 of 1974 in the Rajasthan High Court.

Similar notices under Section l 47(b) of the Act were issued to
respondent No. 2, Rang Lal Bangur, in respect of the assessment year B
1969-70 and 1971-72 which were challenged by him by filing Writ Petitions
Nos. 1182 of 1974 and 57 of 1975 before the Rajasthan High Court.

All the three Writ Petition have been decided by the High Court by
a common judgment dated October 26, 1979 whereby the High Court has
held that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could not be
c
said that the Income Tax Officer had in his possession information in
consequence of which he could have reason to believe that income char-
geable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment years.
The said decision of the High Court has been assailed by the Income Tax
Officer by filing these appeals. D
Section 147(b) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided
as follows:

"147. If -
E
(a) (Omitted)

(b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or
failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee,
the Income Tax Officer has in consequence of information in
his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax F
has escaped assessment for any assessment years,

he may subject to· the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or
reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation
allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned G
(hereinafter in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant
assessment year)".

A perusal of clause (b) of Section 147 shows that for taking action
under the said provision what was required was that (i} the Income Tax
Officer has received information and (ii) in consequence of such informa- H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A tion he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped
assessment for any assessmeilt year. The question is whether in the present
case after he had completed the original assessment the Income Tax
Officer had received information on the basis of which he could have
reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had assessment.

B
Shri D.R. Gupta, Income Tax Officer 'B' Ward, Jodhpur, who was
the assessing .authority and who had issued the impugned notice, filed
his counter affidavit in reply to the Writ Petition wherein he stated that
during the assessment proceedings it was represented to him on behalf
of the assessee that the shares of Maharaj a Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. were
C regularly quoted in the stock exchange and that the sale was affected by
the assessee at the prevalent market rate. A share quotation list was also
shown to him and in these circumstances, he accepted the version given
by the assessee without making any further inquiry regarding the market
rates of the shares, as, at that time, there was no material before him
D to suspect that the fair market value of the shares was higher than the
sale price given out by the assessee. He has further stated that on March
26, 1974, he received a letter through Shri C.S. Jain, inspecting Assistant
Commissioner, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur from Shri S.M. Bagai, Deputy
Director, Directorate of Inspection (Investigation), Special Cell, New
Delhi, dated March 21, 1974, along with some annexures and also a
E telegram by Shri Bagai from Calcutta giving certain information regard-
ing the shares of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, which had
been collected by the said Director Shri S.M. Bagai. The telegram by
Shri Bagai from Calcutta indicated that on inquiries he had found that
the shares of the said Company were not regularly quoted in the Stock
F Exchange, Shri Gupta further stated that he applied his mind to rhe
aforesaid information and it appeared to him that the quotation of the
shares of the Mills at Calcutta Stock Exchange was a result of certain
manipulated transactions between the Bangur Group itself. and he,
therefore, calculated the fair market value of the share at Rs. 250, per
share on the relevant dates as against Rs. 84 and Rs. 85, per share. His
G case was that it was in consequence of the aforesaid information
received by him on March 26, 1974, that he formed the reasonable belief
that the fair market value of the shares was far more than the sale price
and the so-called market quotations shown by the assessee at the time
of the original assessment, were manipulated ones, as a result of which
H the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
I.T.O. v. P.D. BANGUR 485
It would thus appear that the impugned notice was issued by the A
,.
Income Tax Officer on the basis of the letter dated March 21, 1974 from
Shri S.M. Bagai to Shri C.S. Jain. The said letter was as under :

"My dear Jain,

Sub : Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali B

I have received your D.O. No. C-Misc. (56)/73-74/229 dated
19th March, 1974 today through a special messenger enclosing a
statement regarding transfer of shares of the captioned company
and also statement regarding shareholding of that company on C
various dates. You have just confirmed to me on telephone that
you have retained a copy of the statements for your own record.

2. I am enclosing herewith a statement containing certain financial
information regarding the captioned company which has been
extracted from this statement company the paid up equity capital D
of the company is Rs., 72,00,000 divided into 72,000 shares of the
100 each, the equity share date at page 2 of the enclosed statement
indicates that the book value per equity share rose from Rs. 318.55
for the year ending 21st December, 1965 to Rs. 401, for the year
ending 31st December, 1970. The earning per share rose from Rs. E
8.37 per share to Rs. 44 per share during the above mentioned
period. The dividend pem:ntage also rose from 2% to 10% for
the same period. In spite of all these facts, the quotation of the
shares in the Calcutta Stock Exchange fall from Rs. 168 per share
to Rs. 85 per share during this period.
F
3. It is clear from these facts that the quotations appearing are as
a result of certain manipulated transactions between the group
itself and cannot be said to reflect the fair market value of the
company, the extract of which you have given, shows transfer of a
very small number of shares compared to 72,000 equity shares of G
the company1•

4. The statements sent by you contain the names of several
shareholders both corporate as well as non-corporate of Didwana
and Pali, who appear to have been transferring the shares of this
company at values far below the market value of the share. It would H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A be worthwhile examining the the asstt. record of their cases in
order to consider the feasibility of action u/s. 52(2) of the Income
Tax Act/4 of the Gift Tax Act.

5. The equity shareholders list sent by you also gives the names of
certain shareholders of Didwana, Pali and Jodhpur. The Wealth
B Tax Asstt. records of these person will have to be examined to
com;ider whether the value of shares returned by them for the
purpose of their wealth tax assessment is really the open market
value of the shares at the relevant time. I shall be grateful if the
information sent by be me is passed on to the concerned WTOS,
c ITOS and GTOs, so that they may apply their mind to the facts of
each individual case and take such appropriate action under the
W.T. Act, LT. Act and G.T. Act as they may deem fit.

6. I am also enclosing herewith a copy of D.O. addressed to I.A.C.
Bikmer, who I believe has jurisdiction over Didwana. This may
D kindly be sent by special messenger to him. I am also sending one
copy to him direct by post.

7. I am proceeding to Calcutta on the evening of 22nd and in case
I got a some more relevant information, I shall send the same to
E you and I.A.C., Bikaner directly, Meanwhile I would request you
to kindly obtain the value of the shares of the company as on
31.3.1969 by the break-up method and by the maintainable profit
method. These two values may be worked out on the basis of
Circular No. 2 (W.T.) of 1967 and communicated to me telegraphi-
cally Clo Shri Subramanyam, I.A.C. Range XXI, Aayakar Bhawan,
F
P-7 Chowringhes Square, Calcutta, You may also convey this
information to the CIT, Rajasthan and IAC, Bikancr so that the
information reaches the concerned Wealth Tax Officers, Income
Tax Officers and Gift Tax Officers, who would be concerned with
the case of the other share holders in Rajasthan,
G
With regards,

Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
H (S.M. Bagai)"

I
.,.
I.T.O. v. P.D. BANGUR 487
In the second paragraph of his letter Shri Bagai has referred to the A
statement containing certain financial information regarding Maharaja Shri
Umaid Mills Ltd. which he had extracted from the Bombay Stock Ex-
change Directory and which he had forwarded as an annexure along with
the said letter. The said information was to the effect that the paid up
capital of the company was Rs. 72,000,000 divided into 72,000 shares of Rs.
B
100 each; the equity share data at page 2 of the enclosed statement
indicated that the book value per equity share rose from Rs. 318.55 for the
year endi7ig December 21, 1970 to Rs. 401 for the year ending December
31, 1970, the earning per share rose from Rs. 8.37 per share to Rs. 44 per
share during the above mentioned period and the dividend percentage also
rose from 2% to 10% for the same period. But in spite of all these facts, c
the quotation of the shares in the Calcutta Stock Exchange fell from Rs.
168 per share to 85 per share during the said period. In the third paragraph
of his letter Shri Bagai has, on the basis of these facts, expressed the
opinion that the quotations appearing in the Calcutta Stock Exchange were
as a result of the certain manipulated transactions between group itself and D
cannot be said to reflect the fair market value of the Company. In the other
paragraphs of his letter Shri Bagai had suggested steps to be taken for
further investigation in the matter.

The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the said letter of E
Shri Bagai did not contain any information and that there was neither
evidence of manipulation nor evidence of collusive transactions referred to
in the letter and that no inquiries were made by the Income Tax Officer
after the receipt of the letter so as to constitute information. We are unable
to agree with the said view of the High Court. The contents of paragraph F
2 of the letter of Shri Bagai refer to the statement containing financial
information regarding Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Which was an-
nexed to the letter of Shri Bagai. The said statement contained information
derived from the Bombay Stock Exchange Directory about the financial
condition of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. during the period 1965-70
which indicated that during this period the company has prospered and G
that the book value per equity share had arisen from Rs. 318.55 for the
year ending December 31, 1965 to Rs. 401 for the ending December 31,
1970, the earning per share rose from Rs. 8.37 per share to Rs. 44 per share
and that dividend percentage had also risen from 2% to 10% for the same
~~ H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' (1997] lS.C.R.
A On the basis of the information contained in the letter of Shri Bagai
and the documents annexed to it, the Income Tax Officer could have had -(-
reason to believe that the fair market value of the shares was far more than
the sale price and the market quotations from Calcutta Stock Association
shown by the assessee at the time of original assessment were manipulated
ones and as a result income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. It
B could not be said that the information that was contained in paragraph 2
of the letter of Shri Bagai was not definite information and it could not be
acted upon by the Income Tax Officer for taking action und~ Section
147(b) of the Act.

C Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, the learned counsel appearing for the respon-
dents, has urged that the letter of Shri Bagai was received by the Income
Tax Officer on March 26, 1974 and on the very next day, that is, on March
27, 1974, he issued the impugned notice under Section 147(b) of the Act
and that he did not have conducted any inquiry or investigation into the
D information sent by Shri Bagai. Merely because the impugned notice was
sent on the next day after receipt of the letter of Shri Bagai does not mean
that the focome Tax Officer did not apply his mind to the information
contained in the said letter of S;hri Bagai. On the basis of the said facts and
· information contained in the said letter, the Income Tax Officer, without
· any further investigation, could have formed the opinion that there was
E reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had
escaped assessment. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in
proceeding on the basis that it could not be said that the Income Tax
Officer had in his possession information on the basis of which he could
. have reasons to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax had
p .esCl\ped assessment for the 1relevant assessment years. For the reasons
aforementioned we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the
High Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed the impugned judgment of
the High Court is set a~ide and the. Writ Petition fiied by the respondents
are dismissed. No. order as to costs.

·G CWILAPPEALS NOS.. 3234,35 Of 1983

· · These ~ppeals aredirected agairist the judgment of the High C<,1urt
of R~jasthan dated November 26, 1979 whereby the High Court has
allowed \\'.tit Petitions Nos. 1178 and 1181of1974 fil~d by the respondents
and has quashed the ootices dated March 27, 1974 issued under Sectfon

I
I.T.O. v. P.D. BANGUR 489
17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. This judgment of the High Court is based A
on its judgment in D.B. Writ Petition No. 1177of1974 and connected Writ
petitions wherein the High Court had quashed the notices issued by the
Income Tax Officer under Section 147(b) of the Act. For the same reasons
the High Court has quashed the notices under Section 17 of the Wealth
Tax Act in these cases. The said judgment· of the High Court in D .B. Civil B
Writ Petition No. 1177 of 1974 aud connected Writ Petitions, titled Pur-
shottam Das Bangur v. Wealth Tax Officer & Ors. has been set aside in the
. """' f judgment delivered in Civil Appeal Nos. 3041-43 of 1983. For the same
reasons the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld and
has to be set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed the impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petitions Nos. 1178 C
and 1181 of 1974 filed by the respondent are dismissed. No order. as to
costs.

H.K. Appeals are allowed .

.
.