1988 (7) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... run under the name and style of Sharma and Siddhanta. The assessment of the firm for the year 1962-63 was reopened. The reopening order was assailed in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal. He held : "There was thus no omission on the part of the appellant to disclose material facts originally in its assessments. The later inf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ese loans were bogus and that these parties were acting merely as name-lenders. He, therefore, held that these amounts represented the assessee's undisclosed income and believed that this amount had escaped assessment by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts for the assessment. The source of receipt of the amounts appearing as credits in the books of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cessary for the assessment." The Tribunal accepted the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relating to the assessment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X