9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was fully justified in reopening the assessment under section 147(a), on the non-disclosure of the investment in the pick-up van in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) by the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in law that the money received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 18,000 from his sister-in-law, Smt. Somawati, was in the nature of income character and it was rightly included as income from undisclosed sources in the hands of the assessee ? 3. Whether there is any material for the Tribunal's finding that it is doubtful that Smt. Somawati possessed the sum of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere being no particular mode of disclosing such investment under the I.T. Act, the contention of the assessee is that he made a full and true disclosure within the meaning of s. 147(a) of the Act. The argument of Sri Bharatji Agarwal is two-fold: firstly, that question No. 1 is merely academic in view of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case, of Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 466 (SC) and, secondly, that question No. 1 is only a question of fact and not of law. For the second submission, he relied on CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas [1962] 44 ITR 726 (SC). We have carefully gone through these authorities. In Malegaon's case [1970] 78 ITR 466 (SC), the assessee disclosed profits arising by way of capital gain, but the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blished in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Pt. II, section 3(ii), page 1377, dated June 19, 1976), the position remained, as if there was no legal requirement to disclose the investment made in the purchase of the pick-up van by the assessee. It is, therefore, argued that Malegaon's case [1970] 78 ITR 466 is clearly distinguishable from the instant case, as the former considered a case where there was a legal requirement for the assessee to disclose capital gain and necessary facts relating thereto, but in the case of the assessee, though there was legal requirement, as Parts IV and V were introduced with effect from June 1, 1976, but they were never enforced. We find force in the submission of Sri Gulati that the two cases, the one co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese facts, proceedings under s. 34(1)(a) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, analogous to s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, were initiated and then the question arose whether the assessee disclosed fully and truly necessary facts for making assessment. On the facts of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for making the assessment. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the Tribunal as the latter drew an inference from the facts found in the case. So, on the basis of this authority, it cannot be said that question No. 1 is a question of fact. Before us, the point for consideration is whether the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
