TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 17-6-1974. Later, the ITO found that the assessees did not give any indication in the original returns of income that some of the shares sold by the assessees in the previous year relevant to the assessment year were bonus shares for which there was no cost of acquisition and, therefore, correct amount of capital gains escaped assessment. The ITO therefore, issued notice dated 7-3-1976 to both the assessees under section 148 of the Act. In pursuance thereof the assessees filed returns on 25-2-1977. The ITO thereafter issued notice under section 143(2) on 17-3-1977. The cases were taken up for hearing on that date but the ITO did not pass any order. Thereafter, fresh notices dated 6-12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 147 and allowed the assessees' appeals. 3. At the hearing before us it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the ITO had no jurisdiction to initiate second reassessment proceedings by the notice dated 6-12-1977. It is his contention that so long as the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 are satisfied, the ITO is not precluded from initiating proceedings more than once. 4. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the revenue. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are, however, not inclined to accept this contention. It is necessary to set out a few further facts found by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial facts. Admittedly, there was no column in the return for showing the number of bonus shares. Once the fact of sale of the shares was disclosed, it was for the ITO to check up the correctness of the assessees' claim. Even when the second reassessment proceedings were initiated, the ITO did not consider it proper to complete the assessment proceedings already initiated on 5-3-1976. It is not the case of the ITO that the returns were pending pursuant to the first notice dated 5-3-1976 or that the returns were not bona fide returns. It is the case of the assessees that the ITO while making the original assessments did not check up the claim of cost of shares properly and did not complete the assessments. 6. In Chatturam Horilram L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case before us the assessee did not disclose the transactions evidenced by the drafts which the Income-tax Officer discovered. After this discovery the Income-tax Officer had in his possession all the primary facts, and it was for him to make necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amounts invested in the purchase of the draft could be treated as part of the total income of the assessee during the relevant year. This the Income-tax Officer did not do. It was plainly a case of oversight, and it cannot be said that the income chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
