9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have complied with all the requirements of the Income-tax Officer for the completion of the assessment of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 showed in his return for the relevant assessment year a loan of Rs. 1,10,000 alleged to have been received from one Manickchand Mohanlal. The petitioner No. 1 produced the confirmation slip of the alleged lender as well as the income-tax file number of the said alleged lender. By the impugned notice the said assessment has been sought to be reopened. The petitioners contend that there were no materials for reopening of the said assessment. In answer to the rule nisi, issued in this case on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated as follows : (a) The assessee, petitioner No. 1, is being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deposition of Shri Manick Chand Baid is annexed herewith and marked "A". (d) Having received and read the aforesaid report from the Income-tax Officer in-charge of assessment of Manickchand Mohanlal, and after going through the various documents produced and statements made by the petitioner-company at the time of the original assessment, I had reason to believe that by reason of failure or, the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials necessary for its assessment income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and hence a notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued to the assessee-company after duly recording the reasons for issuing the aforesaid notice. At the hearing of this application the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all relevant material facts at the time of the reopening of the assessment. If there are some materials for thinking that there has been some non-disclosure then the court is not concerned with the sufficiency of the materials. In the instant case, the genuineness of the transactions of Manickchand Mohanlal is in question. There are some materials for thinking that there was no full disclosure regarding the transaction. The position is corroborated by the subsequent disclosure in the petition made by one of the directors of the assessee-company, Mr. Mahabir Prosad Murarka, a copy of which and the accompanying letter dated 20th January, 1977, written by the petitioner-company was produced before me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance was placed on the aforesaid letter in support of the argument that the genuineness of the transaction was admitted by the assessee-company to be not correct. On the other hand, on behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the act of a director was not the act of the company and the company was not bound or estopped by the aforesaid letter of the director. Reliance was placed on Buckley on the Companies Acts, 13th edition, page 378, In re Marseilles Extension Railway Company : Ex parte Credit Foncier and Mobilier of England [1872] 7 Ch App 161, 168, 170 and In re David Payne Co. Ltd. : Young v. David Payne Co. Ltd. [1904] 2 Ch 608 (CA). I would not go into the question whether the act of the director is an act of the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
