SC allows fresh assessment of Amitabh Bachchan’s tax liability
In a setback for Amitabh Bachchan, the Supreme Court allowed the Income Tax department on Wednesday to reopen a tax case against him pertaining to his income for the assessment year 2001-02.india Updated: May 11, 2016 22:10 IST
In a setback for Amitabh Bachchan, the Supreme Court allowed the Income Tax department on Wednesday to reopen a tax case against him pertaining to his income for the assessment year 2001-02.
A bench of justices, Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant, upheld two orders of Mumbai’s income tax commissioner, directing fresh assessment of tax liability of the Bollywood star.
The apex court allowed two separate appeals filed by Income Tax Department and set aside the orders of the Bombay high court and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
It deliberated on various provisions of the tax law to allow the appeal of the Income Tax department whose plea was dismissed by the high court.
“In the light of the discussions that have preceded and for the reasons alluded, we are of the opinion that the present is a fit case for exercise of the suo motu revisional powers of the CIT under Section 263 of the (IT) Act.”
“The (March 20, 2006) order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), therefore, is restored and those of the Tribunal dated August 28, 2007 and the high court dated August 7, 2008 are set aside. The appeal of the revenue is allowed,” the bench said.
It also allowed the IT Department’s another appeal filed in 2013 and set aside the January 11, 2010 order of ITAT and the high court’s February 29, 2012 order.
“However, we have to add that as the re-assessment order dated December 29, 2006 had not been tested on merits, the assessee (Bachchan) would be free to do so if he is so inclined and so advised,” the bench said.
The apex court passed the judgement on two appeals by the IT Department that has claimed the actor owes crores of rupees to it as taxes on his income he earned through the quiz show ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’ from 2001-02, which was not considered by the bench.
First Published: May 11, 2016 22:10 IST