Thanjai Murasu (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Janakthanam, J.—These two references relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 raise a common question of law. The

assessee, Thanjai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, it is said, purchased newsprint for the purpose of printing and circulating newspapers. The original

assessments for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 had been completed.

Thereafter, it appears the Income Tax Officer received information that in a survey conducted u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

the Income Tax Act""), in the premises of its sister concern, Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, a stock book (RG 16 register) was found,

according to which the. wastage of newsprint came to be less than 5 per cent., as against 11.1 per cent. shown for 1973-74 and 10.4 per cent.

shown for 1974-75. Hence, the Income Tax Officer reopened the assessments u/s 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after complying with the

requisite formalities for the reason that the wastage shown by the assessee was very high on the basis of the information received and that therefore

the asses-see''s income had escaped assessment by reason of higher wastage having been shown, without any demur from the Assessing Officer.

The Income Tax Officer also had information to believe that the interest payment allowed, in computing the income of the assessee was excessive,

as the borrowed fund had been utilised to advance interest-free loans to certain connected parties, and, thereby there was escapement of income.

After hearing the assessee, reassessments were completed and they were challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

Madras. He cancelled the orders of the Income Tax Officer, in the view that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, was

without jurisdiction.

The Revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that there was sufficient information to initiate

proceedings u/s 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, whereas it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the information was irrelevant and had no

nexus with the facts of the assessment years for making the assessments. The Appellate Tribunal found that the information related to the modus

operandi of the business, which admittedly remained the same and, therefore, though the information related to the later assessment year, it had

nexus with the manner in which the business was conducted for the assessment years in question and, therefore, was relevant information for

initiating reassessment proceedings.

On those facts, the assessee raised the question as to whether the finding that the belief of the Income Tax Officer that the income had escaped

assessment was based on relevant materials is valid in law.

The Tribunal referred the common question for the opinion of this court as below ;

Whether, in the circumstances and the facts of the case, the reassessment made u/s 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, are valid in law ?

Arguments of Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. S. V. Subramaniam, learned senior standing counsel

for Income Tax cases representing the Revenue were heard.

There is no pale of controversy that Thanjai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, and Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, are sister concerns. Admittedly,

the original assessments for both the concerns for the relevant assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 had been completed. It is also not in

dispute that the reassessment proceedings of both the concerns for those relevant assessment years took place on a discovery of new materials

during the course of the assessment proceedings 1975-76. One such important material discovered was a stock book (RG 16 register) maintained

to comply with the Central Excise Regulations and the said register revealed that both the sister concerns claimed high wastage of newsprint for the

relevant assessment years than actually incurred. This apart, interest-free loans were advanced to connected parties and thereby, there was

escapement of income.

These things apart, the appeals filed by both the sister concerns relatable to the relevant assessment years were all heard together by the

Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Tribunal. The same rationale or reasoning was adverted to by the said authorities, while

disposing of the said appeals. Pertinent it is also to note that the same common question of law had been referred to us for our opinion in all those

references.

Today (January 20, 1998), we have disposed of T. C. Nos. 297 and 298 of 1984 (Chennai Murasu P. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 259 ITR 269 ,

relatable to the sister concern Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, by a detailed common judgment. The rationale or reasonings adverted to in the

said common judgment will also hold good in both these actions Tax Case (Reference) Nos. 299 and 300 of 1984 also.

In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. There shall, however, be no order

as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases.