TMI Blog1935 (4) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n with accuracy what the profits were from the sales of gold and silver, but in the year of assessment 1932-33 the Income Tax Officer added to the assessee's income a certain percentage on the sale of gold and silver, three per cent, on the sale of gold and five per cent, on the sale of silver, and on that basis he made the assessment under Section 23(3) of the Act. In the next year of assessment a different Income Tax Officer dealt with the matter, and he came to the conclusion that, as the price of gold had risen very rapidly during the last two months of the previous year of assessment, the Income Tax Officer for that year had underestimated the profits derived from the sale of gold ; he considered that the flat rate on sale of gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the Assistant Commissioner, the question should cover both the sale of gold and of silver in Samvat 1987. The question should be amended in that way. 3. We have had some discussion as to the meaning and scope of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act. That section provides that if for any reason the income, profits or gains chargeable to Income Tax has escaped assessment in any year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Income Tax Officer may, within a time limit therein specified, re-assess such income. It seems to me that the burden of showing that income has escaped assessment or that it has been assessed at too low a rate, lies on the Commissioner. We have been referred to a decision of the full bench of the Rangoon High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all that the evidence comes to-is that the Income Tax Officer of the subsequent year thinks that the Income Tax ' Officer of the earlier year made a wrong assessment as to income, and he gives-his reasons for so thinking. But he does not prove that in fact the assessee received any greater income than the income in respect of which he was assessed. It is not suggested that any facts which were before the second Income Tax Officer were not before the first Income Tax Officer. I guard myself against expressing any opinion upon what the position would be if it were shown that the assessee had given false evidence or suppressed material facts, and thereby induced the assessment made by the first Income Tax Officer. That is not the case her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The words of the section are clear, and upon the plain meaning of the section there seems to be no reason to limit the scope of the section. All that the section means is that if in the taxing year the income assessed is not the whole of the income in the year of assessment, then within a time-limit provided in the section it is open to the Income Tax authorities to revise it, whether the assessment previously made was inadvertent or deliberate or was due to a wrong allowance or improper deduction or a low rate. I respectfully dissent therefore from the view taken by the Rangoon High Court in In re The Commissioner of Income Tax v. U Lu Nyo I.L.R(1933) Ran. 118 where it was held that it was not open to an Income Tax Officer to go behind and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
