TMI Blog1967 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957-58, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had a current account in the Imperial Bank of India in the name of his father-in-law till the latter's death. This fact came to the notice of the Income-tax Officer when the assessee was asked to explain a cash credit of Rs. 40,000 found in the assessment year 1950-51. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 70,000 was advanced by the assessee to Jagamani Pictures on January 9, 1946, which the assessee failed to disclose in the course of the assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year. When later on Jagamani Pictures could not meet this debt the assessee got their distribution right in lieu of the amount advanced and exploited the films. It was also detected by the Income-tax Officer that in the relevant returns the assessee had not shown income from property in the names of his sons, wife and daughter, though many of the properties were purchased by him in their names. The Income-tax Officer had therefore reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and trully all the basic and material facts necessary for the assessment for those years, income chargeable to tax had es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance ; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section : Provided that the Income-tax Officer shall not issue a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (1)-- (i) for any year prior to the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941 ; (ii) for any year, if eight years have elapsed after the expiry of that year, unless the income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax which have escaped assessment or have been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate or have been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act, or the loss or depreciation allowance which has been computed in excess, amount to, or are likely to amount to, one lakh of rupees or more in the aggregate, either for that year, or for that year and any other year or years after which or after each of which eight years have elapsed, not being a year or years ending before the 31st day of March, 1941 ; (iii) for any year, unless he has recorded his reasons for doing so, and, in any case falling under clause (ii), unless the Central Board of Revenue, and, in any other case, the Commissioner, is satisfied on such rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1954, when sub-section (1A) was introduced in section 34, no proceedings under section 34(i)(a) could be initiated except for the assessment years 1946-47, in respect of the previous years that fell within the period beginning on September 1, 1939, and ending on March 31, 1946, for they were barred under the unamended section. Sub-section (1A) of section 34 practically governed a situation that was not governed by the provisions of sub-section (1A) and it was not therefore, appropriate to describe sub-section (1A) as one carved out of sub-section (1)(a) or to call it a species of which sub-section (1)(a) is the genus. The extended period given under sub-section (1A), however, expired on March 31, 1956. Thereafter, the sub-section ceased to be operative in the sense that no notice could thereafter be given thereunder. The sub-section worked itself out. The wide phraseology of sub-section (1)(a) as amended by the Finance Act, 1956, however, takes in all escaped and concealed incomes during all the years commencing from 1941 and confers a power on the Income-tax Officer to give notice thereunder in respect of the said incomes without any bar of limitation. There was, therefore, no co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fully and trully the basic facts in respect of the sources of the alleged cash credits. In the context of these facts we are of opinion that there was some material before the Income-tax Officer on which he formed the prima facie belief that the assessee had omitted to disclose fully and trully all material facts and that in consequence of such non-disclosure income had escaped assessment. It follows that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to issue notices under section 34(1)(a) of the Act and Mr. S. T. Desai, on behalf of the appellant, is unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case. There is also no substance in the contention of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notices under section 34(1)(a) of the Act, because a the original assessment orders showed that the cash credits in question were duly considered and accepted. In Kantamani Venkata Narayana Sons v. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Rajahmundry it was pointed out by this court that the assessee does not discharge his duty to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment of the relevant year by merely producing the books of account or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
