9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the requirements of section 147(a) have not been satisfied, before the respondent assumed jurisdiction to issue notice for reassessment. It is contended by the petitioner that during the assessment of all these years she has been producing account books and money-lending statements in detail. She also produced every information relating to the agricultural income. The Income-tax Officer while making assessment accepted these statements as correct. According to her there is no relevant material on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer could reasonably believe that there was non-disclosure on the part of the petitioner in regard to some relevant material and that, as a consequence, there has been some escapement of tax. In, his counter the Income-tax Officer gave all the relevant facts which, in substance, are not in dispute. He states that the petitioner started money-lending business in 1946. In 1947 she acquired shares worth Rs. 30,000 in Motu Industries, a private limited company, in which her husband was substantially interested. In 1950-51 the petitioner was assessed for the first time and the Income-tax Officer left a note that he had examined the accounts for the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of these facts that it is stated in the counter that the respondent had reason to believe that as a result of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the income was under-assessed. He, therefore, applied to the Commissioner for necessary permission under section 148 of the Act. The Commissioner granted the sanction and consequently a notice under section 147(a) of the Act for reassessment for the year 1956-57 was issued to the assessee. The counter disputes the assertions made by the petitioner in the affidavit. It is on the basis that the petitioner did not file the trial balance or balancesheet which is an important statement, nor she disclosed the cash balance both at the beginning and at the end of the year, that the Income-tax Officer thought that there is a reasonable ground for issuing a notice under section 147(a). In regard to agricultural income it is conceded that it was taken into account in arriving at the unexplained increase in the cash balance at the end of the accounting year, 31st March, 1956. It is not disputed that on 20th December, 1961, the petitioner furnished particulars of agricultural incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court by means of proceedings by certiorari can always enquire into the correctness of the decision in regard to jurisdictional facts. That being a preliminary or collateral question, any determination of the Tribunal in regard to its own jurisdiction is always reviewable by this court : see Rajagopal Reddy v. Kumaraswamy Reddy. That this view is correct is also supported by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer. Let me then see whether in this case there is any material on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer could come safely to the conclusion that he has reason to believe, firstly, that there has been non-disclosure in regard to materially relevant facts and, secondly, because of such non-disclosure the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year 1956-57. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been submitting returns year after year, and along with them she also was filling money-lending statements every year showing the date of investment, the nature of investment in pronotes or mortgage, etc., the total investment at the beginning of the year, the amount collected during the year toward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not shown. It is evident from the counter itself that for a few years at least the opening and closing balance in regard to cash was shown. Curiously, the cash balance as found by the Income-tax Officer now is only Rs. 21,000, whereas from the returns and the statements submitted by the petitioner it was over Rs. 38,000, much more than what is now assessed tentatively. I am, therefore, satisfied that merely because for some years cash on hand was not shown or the trial balance was not furnished, the Income-tax Officer can now reassess the income for the year 1956-57. Neither that allegation is wholly true nor it is so materially relevant that it can form the basis to contend that there has been non-disclosure of relevant material facts. In any case it is not urged in the counter that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant year. What is now sought to be done is a fishing or roving enquiry into the whole question as to how the capital has grown with a hope that it might land the Income-tax Officer somewhere wherefrom he can find out that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant year. I do not think that it is permitted under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
