9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 1949-50 a total income of Rs. 5,93,905 was determined under section 23(3). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition of disclosure and a settlement in writing was arrived at between the petitioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, on 20th September, 1955, wherein, inter alia, the petitioner agreed to the determination of his total undisclosed income including the undisclosed income of his wife at Rs. 6,87,527. Out of this Rs. 2,00,502 was agreed to be spread over a period of six years, from the assessment year 1939-40 to the year 1944-45 and the balance of Rs. 4,87,025, to be distributed equally over a period of five years from 1945-46 to 1949-50. It was further agreed that the total income including the disclosed income and the total demand including the excess profits tax due for each of the years 1945-46 to 1949-50 would be as follows : Total income I. T. Total demand E. P. T. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1945-46 1,22,845 28,700-6-0 51,442-11-0 1946-47 2,23,731 46,815-3-0 1,22,961-5-0 1947-48 1,43,786 61,670-1-0 26,203-5-0 1948-49 1,20,842 63,419-15-0 1949-50 3,02,287 70,394-11-0 ------------------- ----------------------- Rs. 2,71,099-4-0 (?) Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the respondent agreeing to supply the substance of the reasons for the Income-tax Officer's belief that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment within a certain time, the hearing was adjourned. On the 17th July, 1964, the respondent forwarded a statement containing the said substance of the reasons. The petitioner's request to the respondent to clarify certain items of the said statement was rejected. On the 12th July, 1965, the application under article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed. An appeal was preferred from the order of dismissal. By an order of the court of appeal dated the 1st July, 1966, the appeal was allowed, a rule was issued in terms of the prayers of the petition and the trial court was directed to hear the rule. As the affidavit-in-opposition originally filed was found to be unsatisfactory, a, further affidavit was affirmed by the respondent, Income-tax Officer, pursuant to a direction by this court on the 5th March, 1969, to be used in opposition to the petition. In this affidavit the substance of the reasons supplied to the petitioner was further explained and a copy of the proposal for re-opening the assessment of the petitioner for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by T.T. from Pondicherry in the name of Gangadhar and the petitioner's Chittagong account was credited. Out of this sum an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was deposited in cash in the petitioner's account in the Netherlands Trading Society on the same date and the house property was purchased only one month after these transactions. The petitioner was unable to explain the nature of the amount transferred from Pondicherry in the name of Gangadhar. It is further contended that none of these amounts appear to have been considered in the petitioner's assessment for the relevant assessment years and considering the magnitude of the amounts in the background of the petitioner's assets and/or disclosed income for the various years the presumption is inevitable that these amounts and deposits represent the accumulated profit of the petitioner for at least five previous years. It is not quite correct to say that the aforesaid amounts were not considered for the assessment of the petitioner in any year. As I have already pointed out, attempts were made to include these amounts in the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1951-52 which was ultimately set aside by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounts represented the accumulated concealed income of the earlier year and he had the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment for these years. Mr. Bachawat pointed out that by several notices, all dated the 22nd October, 1965, the respondent, Income-tax Officer, gave notice to the petitioner requiring him to explain the various deposits in the petitioner's books as well as in his banking account in respect of the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51, but no explanation was forthcoming. In his affidavit-in-opposition the Income-tax Officer has stated that in view of the magnitude of the amounts in deposit taken in the bank account of the assessee and/or disclosed income of the earlier years as well as the disclosed assets of the petitioner, the amounts must be taken to represent the accumulated profits of at least five previous years. The learned counsel submits that this would bring the present case within the ratio of Kantamani Venkata Narayana's case. It is submitted that the various deposits in the different banks mentioned in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition would amount to about Rs. 17,00,000. So, it was not unreasonable for the Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was forthcoming and in my opinion the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court would be applicable and the Income-tax Officer would be justified in his belief that these amounts represent the concealed income of the assessee of several past years. The department's case is strengthened by the fact that the petitioner had already made a disclosure petition disclosing certain concealed income of previous years but such disclosure could in no way account for the huge deposits and transfers received during the years 1950-51 and 1951-52. While undoubtedly the amounts received and/or shown as received in the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1951-52 would be primarily assessable in that year, if the department wants to assess any of the amounts aforesaid in any other assessment year it would be for the department to establish satisfactorily that such amounts constitute the income of the petitioner for that particular year. At this stage it cannot be said that the respondent, Income-tax Officer, was not justified in issuing the impugned notices under section 148. In the above view, the application is dismissed. The rule is discharged. There would be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
