Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Failure to Disclose Cash Transactions Justifies Reassessment: Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Against BDR Builders

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated against BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited, focusing on the importance of full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for tax assessment.

The court examined the validity of a notice under Section 148 and an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued for the reassessment of BDR Builders for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The crux of the matter was whether the petitioner had failed to disclose significant cash transactions with Mr. Manoj Sethi, which allegedly escaped assessment.

The reassessment notice was predicated on transactions involving substantial cash deposits by Mr. Manoj Sethi, which were not fully disclosed by BDR Builders in the original assessment. Despite BDR Builders’ assertion that all transactions were conducted through cheques and fully disclosed, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted a failure in revealing the cash component of these transactions.

Jurisdiction under Section 147: The court found no improper assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, citing the petitioner’s failure to disclose cash transactions that were crucial for a proper assessment.

Duty of Disclosure: The court highlighted the necessity for an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, stating, “mere production of accounts…does not amount to disclosure” (Para 18).

Interpretation of ‘True and Full Disclosure’: The judges elaborated that true and full disclosure under Section 147 must include all material facts that could lead to a higher income assessment than originally made.

Relevance of Supreme Court Precedents: Referencing several Supreme Court rulings, the court underscored the established duty of the assessee to aid the AO in discovering material facts, which was lacking in this case.

Decision of Judgment: The High Court dismissed the petition filed by BDR Builders, affirming the reassessment proceedings. The court decisively stated that the petitioner had not met the requisite standards of disclosure, thereby justifying the AO’s decision to reassess.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Similar News