9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the present assessment year. In that year before the Income-tax Officer, according to the assessee, the assessee had produced all the relevant documents showing that these machinery had been brought into use by the petitioner and the petitioner was entitled to claim development rebate in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the issue of the notice on the ground that there were no materials and no reasons for the Income-tax Officer to form the belief that due to any omission or failure on the part of the petitioner there has been any under assessment or non-assessment of any income of the petitioner for the relevant assessment year. The officer who issued the notice in this case, Mr. Mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en of what discussion took place with the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment. When there is a dispute as to the question whether a particular objective fact had been disclosed or not at the time of the original assessment, the fact that the Income-tax Officer who has made the original assessment has not filed any affidavit may become a relevant consideration. But, that is not the position here. It is not a case where there is any serious dispute as to what was disclosed at the time of the original assessment but a case where in view of the facts gathered subsequently it appears that what was disclosed originally was not true and full disclosure of primary facts. It is also not a case where because of the subsequent in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received from the special police establishment that purchases of new machineries amounting to Rs. 2,05,622, shown by the assessee in its books for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1956-57 were not actually made. The company had claimed depreciation and development rebate on the aforesaid machineries in the assessment year 1956-57, which incidentally were allowed (the original assessment for this year was made on February 28, 1957). There was thus a prima facie reason to believe that the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1956-57 escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147(a) due to depreciation and development rebate having been granted, on the basis of the assessee's claim on machineries which were no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the aforesaid information alleged to have been received by the income-tax department. I am only concerned, to see whether in fact " there were some reasonable grounds for thinking that there had been any non-disclosure as regards any primary fact, which could have a material bearing on the question of under-assessment ", in the words of the Supreme Court appearing at page 201 of the report in the case of Calcutta Discount Company v. Income-tax Officer. Whether these grounds are adequate or not for arriving at the conclusion is not for this court to investigate at this stage. In the face of the grounds indicated, in my opinion, it would be unreasonable and improper to hold that there was no reasonable ground at all for thinking that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
