9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally filed with the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on January 27, 1962, on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. Subsequently, it was noticed by the Income-tax Officer that even though the assessee had sold shares of M/s. Electrical Manufacturing Company Limited on January 13, 1959, and even though she had capital gains on the sale of these shares, she had failed to furnish the necessary particulars in her return of income originally filed by her. Thereafter, on January 20, 1968, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act on the assessee calling upon her to file a return of income. In response to the notice, the assessee filed her return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1959. Further, it was stated that the Income-tax Officer was aware of the assessee's acquiring shares of M/s. Electrical Manufacturing Company Limited as could be seen from the letter of the Income-tax Officer dated February 27, 1960. In this view of the matter, it was finally submitted that as the assessee had furnished all the necessary facts at the time of the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment under section 148 of the 1961 Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in his order dated September 14, 1972, accepted the submissions of the assessee and concluded that no fresh facts had come to light which disclosed any concealed income on the part of the assessee and which would justify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Act were based on mere change of opinion on the part of the Income-tax Officer. " On the aforesaid facts, the following question of law has been referred to this court at the instance of the assessee : " Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act is justified ? " Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended that in this case even assuming that there was any omission to disclose the sale of shares, there was no escapement of income. He has contended that the Income-tax Officer changed the basis of ascertaining the capital gains which is not permissible. In this connection, he has relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Leela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions which must be satisfied in order to confer jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings for reassessment of income under section 147(b) read with section 52 is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe, on the strength of information in his possession, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year and that such escapement has taken place because the actual consideration received by the assessee was not disclosed and the consideration in respect of the transfer was shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. Before assuming jurisdiction for reassessment by issuance of a notice under section 148, it is essential for the Income-tax Officer to reach such a tenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The cases cited by Dr. Pal, therefore, have no application to the facts of this case. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee sold her share in the " structures " at 136, Jessore Road, on July 1, 1958, and 1,000 shares of M/s. Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd., on January 3, 1959, and made substantial capital gains. The facts relating to the sale of these assets and the capital gains were not disclosed by the assessee at the time of the original assessment. As a result of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for her assessment for the assessment year 1959-60, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reduction in the holding of the shares. It cannot, therefore, be said that the assessee made a full or true disclosure of all primary facts. The finding of the Tribunal that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the primary fact relating to the sale of the shares as a result whereof the capital gains escaped assessment has not been challenged in this proceeding. We have to confine ourselves to the facts as found by the Appellate Tribunal and answer the question in the setting and context of those facts. On the facts found by the Tribunal, the reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Act is justified. In that view of the matter, the question in this reference must be answered in the affirmati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
