9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution for special leave and the same has been granted. This appeal (C. A. No. 1080 of 1971) will be disposed of by this judgment and for doing so we shall refer to the printed record in C. A. No. 1685 of 1968. The assessee was H. K. Shah who is now dead and is represented by the present respondents. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1955-56 the previous year being that ending on March 31, 1955. H. K. Shah, deceased, hereinafter referred to as the "assessee", had a share of profit from the Mysore Premier Metal Factory, Madras, of which he was a partner. He was also carrying on other business and was being assessed at Calcutta. In his return which he filed before the Income-tax Officer at Calcutta he specificall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent to the making of the assessment to justify the action taken under section 34(1)(b). The revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal which reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1955-56. The view of the Tribunal was that the information on the record in respect of the share of profit assessable to tax had escaped the notice of the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, he was justified in taking action under section 34(1)(b). Two questions were referred for the opinion of the High Court but we are only concerned with the first question which is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the action under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence or due to perfunctory performance of his duties without due care and caution could well be within the ambit of section 34(1)(b), provided the requirements of that section are satisfied. In other words, even if the assessee has placed the entire facts which would enable the Income-tax Officer to make a proper assessment of his income but he fails to do so for the various reasons stated earlier he can, as soon as he realizes his mistake, issue a notice under section 34(1)(b) after completing the assessment. We may refer at this stage to some of the decisions of this court in which the principles applicable to the case of the present kind have been enunciated. In Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently that that particular item of income has escaped assessment. In our judgment it is wholly unnecessary to go into the question whether an inadvertent omission can justify the reopening of the assessment on its subsequent discovery by the Income-tax Officer. No such position was adopted by the Income-tax Officer when he was called upon by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to state the reason for not including the income of the Madras firm about the factum and existence of which fall disclosure had been made in the return filed by the assessee and with regard to the income of which a note had been made on the file when the share allocation report was received from the Income-tax Officer, Madras, on September 21, 1955. It appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
