9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessments, thought that if a ship was borne on the fleet for more than 20 years, the assessee was disentitled to depreciation in respect of that ship. Hence, the proceedings for all these years were reopened under s. 34(1)(a) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, after due formalities. The contention of the assessee-company was indicated and the ITO disallowed the depreciation for certain ships of each of these years. The assessee filed appeals before the AAC. The assessee challenged the orders of the ITO. The AAC disposed of all these appeals by an order dated 12th April, 1971. He held, inter alia, as follows: " 3. On going through the records, I find that at the time of original assessments, the appellant had filed a detailed statement giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ships, those years in which a ship did not come to India are to be taken into account or should be excluded, is matter of inference only to be drawn from the primary facts. As held by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co.'s case [1961] 41 ITR 191, u/s. 34(1)(a), the duty of the assessee is only to disclose primary facts; he is not to indicate what factual or legal inference should properly be drawn from the primary facts." Therefore, on the basis of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, the AAC felt that the appellant had disclosed all primary facts. Therefore, the AAC held that the necessary conditions for taking action under s. 34(1)(a) were not satisfied in this case. He further held that according to the ITO the only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was entitled to get depreciation under rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules even in respect of ships which had formed part of the assessee's fleet for more than 20 years ?" The second question would only arise if the first question is answered in the negative. In order to answer this question fully, it is necessary to find out first whether there was any escapement of income and, secondly, even if there was any escapement whether there was any failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly any material or relevant fact. This aspect, viz., whether there was any failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly any material or relevant fact had not been considered by the Tribunal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
