9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (2) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had 12 annas share. Assessments were also made on two other partners of the firm on total income consisting of their respective shares of income from that firm and salaries received by them therefrom. On the 22nd March, 1957, the registration of that firm was cancelled under rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules relating to these four years on the ground that the present assessee, Narainji Manji Rathore, was the proprietor of that business and that it was not actually a partnership firm. Since the assessee had been assessed on his share income from that firm, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment after serving a notice under section 34 of the Act in respect of those four years, as the entire income from that firm was not included i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the firm, Narainji Manji Rathore, was that the assessee was not a partner but the proprietor of that firm and that the entire income of that business run under the name of that firm had not been included in the assessee's total income, but only a part of it. Since a part of that income had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee, he initiated the proceeding under section 34 of the Act. It is true that all the facts connected with the firm had been disclosed to the Income-tax Officer by the assessee at the time of the original assessment, and therefore, the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee was not guilty of any suppression as contemplated under section 34(1)(a) was correct. But, the case can well be covere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if at any point of time the Income-tax Officer is equipped with the information that a particular business is not a partnership and that the assessee was the sole proprietor of that, but the entire income from that business was not included in his original assessment, that will be an " information " within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 34. In the present case that was the position, and, therefore, in my view, the reassessment was justified within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) of the Act. But as far as the year 1952-53 was concerned, four years had elapsed before the notice under section 34 was issued and for that reason the proceeding for reassessment was barred by time. For the other three years, viz., 1953-54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
