9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61 could not be invoked in this case." 2. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, no question of law arises from the said combined order of the Tribunal, we decline to draw up to statement of the case and refer the above mentioned common question to the High Court. 3. The assessee, inter alia, owns a house property at Chandigarh, income from which was assessed by the ITO in the original assessments framed on 23rd Oct., 1976 and 25th July, 1977 for the years under appeal respectively. Unexplained investment in the construction in both the years was not examined by the ITO at the stage of the original assessments. For both the years, the ITO observed at the stage of the original assessments that the investment in the property was not examined, as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6,77,358. The ITO was therefore of the view that unexplained investments was to the tune of Rs. 3,97,542 (10,73,900 Rs. 6,76,358). He apportioned the unexplained investment to the extent of Rs. 3,14,907 to the asst. yr. 1974-75 and to the extent of Rs. 70,670 to the asst. yr. 1975-76 and took the view that the said unexplained investment being the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources had escaped assessment in two years. He, therefore, made the additions of Rs. 3,14,907 and of Rs. 70,670 in the reassessment orders for the years under appeal respectively framed on 22nd March, 1980. 4. On appeal, the CIT (A) accepted the legal objection of the assessee that the ITO was not right in exercising jurisdiction under s. 147(a) read wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not disclosed, it cannot be said that there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing material facts. The argument of the assessee was that disclosure of the investment does not constitute a material fact within the meaning of s. 147(a). No material was shown by the Revenue that disclosure of investment in the constructions constituted a material fact. Looking to the requirements of the return form and other materials, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the contention of the assessee was correct and non-disclosure of the investment in the return did not constitute any omission or failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material fact. We, therefore, hold that no question of law arises from su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
