9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (10) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return wherein he disclosed fully and completely the particulars of his interest income, but raised the plea that his forest income was not taxable. The Income-tax Officer, by his order dated July 12, 1945, made a revised assessment including both the incomes. The respondent eventually took the matter on appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which, by its order dated April 25, 1949, held that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34 of the Act in respect of the forest income on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had knowledge that the assessee had such income when he made the original assessment. Though the Tribunal only dealt with the question of forest income, by inadvertence or by mistake, it set aside the entire order of reassessment dated July 12, 1945, made by the Income-tax Officer and restored the original order passed by him. The income-tax department did not take any steps to rectify the mistake under section 35 of the Act or make any attempt to have the question of the illegality referred to the High Court. Having allowed the order to become final, on January 3, 1950, the Income-tax Officer after obtaining the sancti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad become final and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer could not initiate fresh proceedings under that section on the principle of res judicata. To appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to notice the scope of the order of the Tribunal dated April 25, 1949. Before the Appellate Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer who issued the said notice had no definite information which led to the discovery that the said income had escaped assessment within the meaning of the said section. Adverting to the said argument the Tribunal observed : " We do not agree with the contention of the department that the Income-tax Officer who made the original assessment did not apply his mind to this fact, as there is no evidence to show that at the material time such income was considered taxable by the department. Ordinarily one would expect that when an Income-tax Officer makes the assessment he does according to law and on the facts as produced before him. If the fact is before him and he refused to take it into account thinking that it was immaterial or even inadvertently takes no notice of it, it cannot be said that the Income-tax Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing given by the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer did not " discover " that the income had escaped assessment. The Income-tax Act is a self-contained one. It creates a hierarchy of tribunals with original, appellate and revisional jurisdictions. Section 31 gives, inter alia, right of appeal against some orders of the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ; section 33 provides for a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ; and sub-section (6) of section 33 says that save as provided in section 66 orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. Section 66 provides for reference to the High Court on a question of law ; and section 66A provides for appeals in certain cases to the Supreme Court. It is clear from the said provisions that the order of the Tribunal made within its jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of section 66 of the Act, is final. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in respect of the subject-matter under appeal before it is final and cannot be reopened by the assessee or the department. The Judicial Committee in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Khemchand Ramdas succinctly stated the legal position thus : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : " If the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee . . . to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for that year . . . he may in cases falling under clause (a) at any time . . . serve on the assessee a notice . . . " It is said that the words " has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material acts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment " are more comprehensive than the words " the Income-tax Officer discovers that income, etc., have escaped assessment in any year ", and, therefore, though there was a finding by the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer did not " discover " that there was escape of assessment, the Income-tax Officer under the amended section 34 can initiate proceedings in spite of that finding. We cannot accept this argument. It could not have been the intention of the legislature by amending the section to enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
