TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed an order imposing additional tax by holding that the petitioner was a company in which the public were not substantially interested, but his order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on July 22, 1972, on the ground that the ITO had no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and that the said proceeding either under s.147(a) or s. 147(b) of the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 read the said order of the Tribunal and submitted a report to the CIT for his permission to reopen the assessment under s. 147(a) of the Act which was granted by the Commissioner. This report has been produced before me and in it the respondent No. 1 has stated that the memorandum and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been held that to confer jurisdiction under s. 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the ITO must have reason to believe that the income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had been under-assessed and that he must have also reason to believe that such " under-assessment " has occurred by reason of either, (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under s. 22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. There is no dispute between the learned counsel that the above law laid down by the Supreme Court also applies to s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Now, Mr. A. K. Maitra, a director of another c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns to believe that this document was not produced by the petitioner at the time of original assessment before the respondent No. 2. In support of his contention he has relied on the assessment order in which respondent No. 2 has recorded that the documents were produced before him by the petitioner at the time of assessment. He has also relied on the affidavit of Mr. Maitra in this behalf. It is his submission that no reliance should be placed on the affidavit of respondent No. 1 and that the condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction under s. 147(a) of the Act has not been fulfilled in this case. Mr. Sen, on the other hand, has argued that it was not necessary for respondent No. 2 to file any affidavit in this proceeding because, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
