9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (12) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for direction forbidding the 1st Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, from reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1959-60, and the other to quash an order which the Income-tax Officer made subsequently reopening the earlier assessment. The Income-tax Officer made that order because this court declined to make any interim order pending the first writ petition, but permitted him to proceed with the reassessment. The assessee, who is the petitioner, is a registered partnership carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of yarn in Tirunelveli town. For the assessment year 1959-60 the firm filed a return showing a net loss of Rs. 90,958, the accounting year therefor having ended on December 31, 1958. This resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to it, when a notice under section 148 was served on the assessee, it immediately came up to this court with a petition under article 226 of the Constitution to restrain the Income-tax Officer from proceeding further on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to act under section 147(a). In the reassessment order dated October 31, 1966, the Income-tax Officer referred to the fact that no reserve had been created in the accounts as required by the statutory provision, that subsequent creation of such reserve was not sufficient compliance and that, therefore, the development rebate originally allowed should be disallowed. On that view he added a sum of Rs. 86,754 to the assessment. It is contended before us for the assessee that it had i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, is whether the primary facts disclosed to the Income-tax Officer as stated above were in any wise incomplete so that it could be said there was omission on the part of the assessee which resulted in under-assessment in the sense that the development rebate claimed was, wrongly allowed. We may at once notice that the particulars required under the proviso to section 10(2)(vib) were not furnished along with the return in the original assessment proceedings. It is admitted that no, separate reserve as for development rebate has been created. Clause (b) of the proviso requires that before a claim for development rebate could be allowed, it is necessary that an amount equal to 75% of the development rebate to be actually allowed is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Was it necessary for the assessee to go further and tell the Income-tax Officer that there was no compliance with the requisites of the proviso because it had not created a reserve as required under the proviso? In our view there was no further duty on the assessee to reiterate that no such reserve had been created, which was obvious from the facts already before the Officer. It is strenuously argued before us by Mr. Balasubrahmanyan for the revenue that this was clearly a case of commission on the part of the assessee to file the balance-sheet which alone would have disclosed separate reserve in the accounts pertaining to development rebate. We fail to appreciate the argument. We are not satisfied that the filing of a balance-sheet woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
