TMI Blog1969 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner that she had submitted all the relevant accounts and statements of material facts necessary for her assessment for the aforesaid years. By an order dated the 22nd December, 1962, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, cancelled the assessment orders for the aforesaid assessment years under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (now repealed). The material portion of the order under section 33B is in the following terms : " Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration I cancel the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer, E-Ward, Dist. II(1), Calcutta, on 28th December, 1960, for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1960-61 and direct that fresh assessments in accordance with law be made by the Income- tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any omission or failure on the part of the assessee either to make a return under section 139 of the Act or to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment for the year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. Mr. Banerjee relied on the well-known authorities of the Supreme Court in the Calcutta Discount Company's case , as also Naravanappa's case , for the proposition that fulfilment of these two conditions precedent was necessary before the Income-tax Officer could assume jurisdiction under section 147(1)(a) of the Act. It was next contended that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee in the present case either to file a return or to make a full or true disclosure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessments for these years were originally completed by the Income-tax Officer, E-Ward, District I(1), as follows : 1956-57 ... Rs. 14,767 1957-58 ... Rs. 8,333 1958-59 ... Rs. 9,000 1959-60 ... Rs. 9,125 These assessments were later on cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B and for which one of the grounds was that the Income-tax Officer hbad no jurisdiction to make these assessments. The jurisdiction in this case has since been transferred to me, and, therefore, reopening the proceedings under section 147(1)(a) has become essential. Necessary sanction may kindly be accorded. " In paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Sri Sinha, however, the following statement occurs : " It appeared to me that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment in the course of the original assessment proceedings. That being so, the contention of Mr. Banerjee is correct and is fully borne out by the materials disclosed in the second affidavit of the Income-tax Officer. Mr. Dipankar Gupta sought to contend that there was no valid return in the original assessment proceedings as the return were filed before an Income-tax Officer who had no jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Mr. Gupta contended that the duty of the assessee to file a return postulated a duty to file the same before the proper Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. In the absence of such a return before the proper Income-tax Officer, according to Mr. Gupta, there would be an omission to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
