9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated briefly at the outset. It relates to the assessment year 1955-56 and the corresponding previous year ended on the 30th June, 1954. The only question before the Tribunal relates to the validity of reassessment under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 for the assessment year 1955-56. The original assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer on a total income of Rs. 83,606. This was reduced in appeal to Rs. 67,092. Subsequentlv the Income-tax Officer re-opened the assessment and in the reassessment that followed he included the sum of Rs. 61,353 as "exchange profit". The profit arose out of remittance made from Pakistan in respect of two bank drafts dated 12th March, 1954, and 23rd April, 1954, drawn by the Muslim Commercia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, however, accepted the contention of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be said to have failed in its discharge of duty to disclose fully and truly primary facts and in doing so appears to have followed the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's reasoning on the point may be stated in their own words : " In the present case, when the assessee had specifically referred to the existence of the exchange surplus in its balance-sheet which was laid before the Income-tax Officer, it cannot be said that there was any failure or omission on the part of the assessee in the disclosure of the primary facts. It is possible that the Income-tax Officer who made the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -section are that the income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax should have : (a) escaped assessment for the relevant year, (b) been under-assessed, (c) been assessed at too low a rate, (d) been made the subject of excessive relief, or (e) excessive loss or depreciation allowance have been computed. The condition is satisfied that this income or profit escaped assessment. The other requisites which must be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acts under this section are that the Income-tax Officer should have reason to believe that the income escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee : (a) to make a return of his income under section 22 for that year or (b) to disclose fully and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en discovered by the Income-tax Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of that section. Disclosure within the meaning of that section is quite clear. He has to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year. Full and true disclosure requirement has not been made, in our opinion, by the facts of this case. We do not think that the Tribunal read Calcutta Discount Co's. case correctly. It is no doubt true that the duty of the assessee does not extend beyond a fall and true disclosure of the material facts and it was not the duty of the assessee to decide what inferences of facts and law would reasonably be drawn therefrom. But, it is not so much a question of primary fact. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice of the Income-tax Officer particular items in the books of account or portions of documents which are relevant. Even if it be assumed that from the books produced the Income-tax Officer, if he had been circumspect, could have found out the truth, he is not on that a account precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment. It is necessary for the assessee to make a return or the statement. Making of a return is not a mechanical job. The statement should be clear and intelligible. It must highlight the necessary features in the income and expenditure in the profit and loss. That is what is called making a return or a statement. The obligation to make a return is not satisfied by handing over to the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was argued out by the counsel for the income-tax department, the attorney for the respondents said that his counsel was Mr. Sukumar Mitra, who happens to be out of Calcutta. His junior was un-named. We even wanted to give the attorney liberty, who was making his submission before us, to argue the matter on behalf of M/s. Mukherjee and Biswas, who were the attorneys for the respondents, Then he, revealed that he was not the person in charge. On our asking him as to who was in charge, the reply was Mr. Sunil Mitra. On our enquiring again from him whether Mr. Sunil Mitra would be available he said that he was not in the office. This is a very irresponsible way of conducting a reference. This matter has been on the list for many days. This ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
