9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 27(1): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 17(1)(a) was valid in law?" The dispute relates to the two assessment years, namely, 1969-70 and 1971-72. The original assessment of the assessee, who is an individual, was re opened under section 17(1)(a) of the Weal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax by order dated March 20, 1980, on the finding that it was not a case of non-disclosure of material facts and as such the notice under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act was held bad. The Department filed two appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the aforesaid two assessment years which were allowed by a common order dated January 29, 1981. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, it amounts to nondisclosure of the relevant materials for the purposes of assessment. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538. It has been held by the Supreme Court that every disclosure is not and cannot be treated to be a true and full disclosure. A disclosure may be a false one or a true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the notice for reassessment. In the present case, all the conditions for reassessing of the assessee as prescribed under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act existed. Hence in our opinion the reassessment notice was fully justified.
In view of the above, we answer the above question in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Department. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
