9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Trust. The relevant valuation date for the Trust's wealth-tax for the assessment year 1968-69 was the 31st March, 1968. The assets of the Trust consisted of shares in public limited companies, etc. The Trust, on the 28th December, 1968, filed its return under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1968-69. On the relevant valuation date, that is, the 31st March, 1968, the Trust held 10,000 shares of the Central India Industries Ltd. The value of these 10,000 shares was stated to be Rs. 1,30,000 at the rate of Rs. 13 per share. The Trust also filed a letter dated the 27th December, 1968, along with this return. In this letter, inter alia, it was stated : "The values of quoted shares have been taken as per quotations on the recognised Stock Exchanges in India. Fair market value of unquoted shares has been taken as per valuation by approved valuers". The shares of Central India Industries Ltd. were included in the list of "quoted shares". The case of the petitioners is that the shares were quoted at the Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange at Indore. On the 5th January, 1970, the Department of Company Affairs of the Government of India forwarded to the Secretary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contents of the report would be discussed at the proper time. On 12th February, 1971, Shri D. R. Chakraburtty, I.A.C., Range I, addressed a letter to Shri B. K. Bagchi, Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I, stating, inter alia, that the Directorate's enquiry as to the genuineness of the stock exchange quotations of the Central India Industries Ltd., was complete and the Directorate had come to a finding that the company was not either listed on the Indore Stock Exchange or the transactions were bogus (vide para. 3 of the letter dated February 12, 1971, at pages 8 to 9 of Srinivasan's affidavit). This is the fourth basic document which would be discussed further at the appropriate time. On 23rd March, 1971, the Trust wrote to the Wealth-tax Officer, 'M' Ward, District V(1), that the assessments of various assessees for the year 1965-66 had been reopened. The ground for the reopening, according to the department, was that the fair market value of the shares should be taken at their break-up value instead of quoted value on the M.P. Stock Exchange. As the Trust was holding 10,000 shares in Central India Industries Ltd., its assessments for the year 1965-66 was also reope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, Commissioner of Income-tax. In this letter details of investigation by the Directorate into the transactions relating to various shares including the shares of the Central India Industries Ltd. have been set out. The findings of the Directorate have also been mentioned. This is the fifth and last basic document on which the tax authorities have justified the reopening of the assessment for the year 1968-69, which is the subject matter of the present application. On the 20th March, 1973, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax made an endorsement on Badami's letter of the 14th March, 1973, to all Income-tax and Wealth-tax Officers "for favour of information and necessary action". It was stated in this endorsement: "If there is any time barring action involved, it may please be taken well within limitation". On the 29th March, 1973, the Wealth-tax Officer issued notice to the Trust under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the reopening of the assessment for the year 1968-69. The notice does not state whether it is under section 17(1)(a) or section 17(1)(b). This is the notice which has been challenged in the present proceedings. The petitioners have ask ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been gone through and there is much more available with the Special Cell ........ (Vide, pages 176, 178 and 184 of the Paper Book). The respondent's case, therefore, clearly appears to be that the reopening of the assessment for the year 1965-66 was due to the conclusions that the Company Law Board had reached on the basis of investigations which they conducted. These proceedings were dropped under legal advice. Later on, a Special Cell of the Finance Ministry under a Director of Investigation probed thoroughly into the stock exchange transactions, collected necessary evidence and examined the procedure adopted in carrying on these transactions. An array of new facts came to the knowledge of the Board and it is on the basis of these new facts that the reopening of assessment for 1968-69 was resorted to. On the 4th June, 1973, the Trust filed under protest its return for 1968-69 in response to the notice under section 17. The Trust requested the Wealth-tax Officer to disclose the reasons for reopening. The proceedings in this court had already started and the application, as we have seen, eventually came up before Masud J. Before proceeding any further let us recapitulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts pertaining to the value of the shares held in Central India Industries Ltd. on the relevant valuation date and that as a result the net wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1968-69 escaped assessment. Moreover, in any event, in consequence of the information in my possession, namely, the aforesaid letter dated 14th March, 1973, and the data relevant to the calculation of the true value of the wealth escaping assessment, I had also reason to believe that the net wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the said assessment year." Mr. Deb's contention is that the Wealth-tax Officer must have reason to believe either under section 17(1)(a) or under section 17(1)(b). In him there cannot be a dichotomy of belief. He Cannot say that he believes that wealth has escaped assessment by reason of non-disclosure of material facts and at the same time hold the belief that even if there was no omission or failure to disclose, wealth has escaped assessment. In other words, beliefs under clauses (a) and (b) cannot be concurrently held. Belief under section 17(1)(a), according to Mr. Deb, excludes be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by section 34 should be issued. The principal fact in both clause (a) and clause (b) of section 34(1) is that income has escaped assessment for any year or has been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate. That fact is common to both the clauses. The difference between the two clauses is that clause (a) contemplates a case where the assessment or under-assesment was caused by an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to do certain things and clause (b) contemplates a case where such escape from assessment or under-assessment occurred in spite of there having been no such omission or failure. The practical consequence of the presence of such omission or failure in one case and the absence thereof in the other is that, in the first case, the period within which the notice contemplated by the section can be issued is longer. I do not see how that difference makes it necessary or imperative that the notice itself must specify under which of the two clauses of the section it is being issued. All that the section itself says is that the Income-tax Officer may 'serve on the assessee ...... a notice under sub-section (2) of section 22'. The main notice to be issued is, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the income had escaped assessment will remain and if income which ought to have been assessed is discovered as having remained unassessed, that will be a sufficient ground for proceeding to its assessment, provided, however, the period of limitation has not already expired. I am giving that illustration only for the purpose of pointing out that the Income-tax Officer cannot possibly be tied down to the section or the clause which he mentioned in the notice and if he be free to make an assessment, provided there is some escaped or under-assessed income and provided that the time for making an assessment has not run out, it cannot be essential to the validity of a notice that a particular clause of section 34(1) should be specified........ We have extensively quoted the views of Chakravartti C.J. as we are in agreement with them. In our case the notice that was issued for reassessment was a notice under section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. Section 17 provides the machinery for the issue of that notice. The machinery must be made workable to satisfy the object of the legislature. The view of Chakravartti C.J. that the notice to be issued in a case under section 34, is a n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther words, the situations to which these clauses are applicable exclude each other. But that does not mean that the same set of facts cannot constitute inference under clause (a) and information under clause (b) when they come to the knowledge of a Wealth-tax or Income-tax Officer which leads him to believe that wealth or income has escaped assessment. He may believe that the escapement was due to omission or failure of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts. He may also believe that even if there was no failure or omission on the part of the assessee, the new facts compose information in his possession which call for reassessment of escaped wealth or income. For all these reasons we are of the opinion that the notice of reassessment in the instant case cannot be struck down on the ground that the Wealth-tax Officer held alternative beliefs. Incidentally, we may mention in this connection that elaborate arguments were advanced before us by both the parties on whether or not the facts in the instant case can be brought under section 17(1)(a) or section 17(1)(b). For instance, Mr. R. C Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the assessees at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred us to the Rajya Sabha debate of the 15th May, 1973, at pages 174 to 178 of the Paper Book. The Minister of Finance said : "Now, Sir, in the course of getting all the facts and making necessary enquiries, they conducted certain survey operations. They investigated the whole thing. After the investigation the cell (of the Directorate of Inspection) came to the conclusion that the questioned Stock Exchange quotations were colourable and collusive. On the basis of the evidence which was before the cell, the Board of Direct Taxes decided to reopen the proceedings. "The Minister's statement, therefore, is that the decision to reopen was not that of the Wealth-tax Officer but of the Board of Direct Taxes. But the basic documents containing the directions of the Board, says Mr. Deb, have not been disclosed in these proceedings. Mr. Deb drew our attention to paragraph 6 of D. R. Chakraborty's letter of the 12th February, 1971, at page 9 of the annexures to the affidavit of Srinivasan. In this paragraph D. R. Chakraborty writes to the Commissioner of Income-tax : "The proceedings for the years 1961-62 and 1965-66 were reopened last year by the Income-tax Officer on the specific dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Incomne-tax endorsed Badami's letter to the Wealth-tax Officer "for favour of information and necessary action" (vide page 71 of the Paper Book). These documents clearly establish, according to Mr. Deb, that the reopening was nothing but a command performance. The decisions, if any, taken by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are not before us. Bat the documents already on record show that a Special Cell of the Directorate of Inspection (Investigation) which was set up in August, 1972, made a report in January, 1973. The details gathered by the Special Cell were communicated by Badami to the Commissioner of Income-tax on the 14th March, 1973 (vide pages 59 to 70 of the paper book). The Commissioner of Income-tax endorsed Badami's letter to the Wealth-tax Officer on the 20th March, 1973 (vide page 71 of the paper book). So far as the Wealth-tax Officer is concerned these two were the only relevant documents to consider whether he had any choice or option in the matter or any scope for forming his own belief required under section 17. The decision of the Central Board, if any, may have been communicated to the Director of Investigation or the Commissioner of Income-tax who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry conditions of section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. We are inclined to accept these statements of the Wealth-tax Officer on oath, particularly in view of the internal evidence of his application of mind in this case. We have already stated that one of the actions which Badami had proposed was that in all cases which were not reopened earlier but in which assessments had been completed, the assessments might be reopened on the basis of the materials gathered by the Special Cell. The reopening, according to Badami, might be made under section 17(1)(a). Badami suggested further that for the assessment year 1968-69 onwards the reopening might be done under section 17(1)(b) also "as a protective measure". We have already seen that the Wealth-tax Officer did not reopen under section 17(1)(b) "as a protective measure". On the contrary, in paragraph 4(d) of his affidavit-in-opposition (page 50 of the paper book) he speaks of his alternative belief under section 17(1)(b). On the evidence on record, therefore, we are unable to hold that this was a "command performance" as urged by Mr. Deb. In this connection it may be relevant to refer to two decisions which have discussed the subject o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments on record and the affidavit-in-opposition of the Wealth-tax Officer, we cannot say that he failed to apply his mind or to come to his independent conclusion despite the views of the superior authority communicated to him, which he had taken into consideration. In Sri Luxmi Janardan Jew v. State of West Bengal, this court was considering the provisions of section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act of 1948. The section was as follows : "3. Power to requisition.--(i) If in the opinion of the Provincial Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the Provincial Government it is necessary so to do for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage, the Provincial Government or the persons so authorised, as the case may be, may, by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further orders as appear to it or to him to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning : Provided that no land used for the purpose of religious worship shall be requisitioned under this section." This court has consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istic nature of the market quotation is evident on a scrutiny of the balance-sheets of these companies. In the case of the Central India Industries Ltd., the company had reserves of the order of Rs. 1.36 crores on March 31, 1969. But the market quotation was only Rs. 14 per share of Rs. 10 (paragraph 4.1). Fourthly, the shares of the Punjab Produce Trading Co. Ltd. and Central India Industries Ltd. were listed on the Delhi and Indore Stock Exchanges. After such listings quotations have been obtained on the basis of a few fringe dealings in these shares or on the basis of enquiry in stock exchange by the stock-brokers. (paragraph 9.8) On the basis of these findings of facts the Special Cell of the Department of Company Affairs came to certain conclusions. The first conclusion is that the share transactions in Indore Exporting Importing Co. Ltd. and the Punjab Produce Trading Co. Ltd. on which quotations have been based are colourable (paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3). The second conclusion is that one has to look to the wealth-tax angle for finding out the reasons for obtaining the listing in the stock exchange for these closely held shares and having certain transactions through no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to ascertain the real motive behind such transactions (paragraph 4). The note further suggests that shares have been acquired by closely held investment companies at advantageous prices. This fact leads to suspicion which requires further enquiry (paragraph 5). The next suggestion is that the circumstances under which closely held investment companies including the Central India Industries Ltd. were promoted and the time and price at which shares were ultimately transferred to the Birla family at prices much below the real value requires to be investigated (paragraph 6). In paragraph 7 of these notes it is stated that the shares of some closely held investment companies have been listed in the recognised stock exchanges mainly at Indore and Delhi and some sample transactions of sale and purchase have also been got through at nominal prices in order to enable the stock exchange to publish the transactions in the official bulletins on the basis of such quotations. The shareholders of these companies have disclosed the value of these shares in their wealth-tax returns only at those prices and in view of the evidence of the quotations of recognised stock exchange, the Wealth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted on recognised stock exchange and by using this as a device for reducing wealth-tax liability of members of the Birla family or their nominees holding shares in such companies. It is, therefore, necessary to take up the matter about listing of the shares of such closely held companies as Punjab Produce, Central India Industries Ltd. and Indore Exporting Importing Co. Ltd. with the appropriate stock exchange authorities at Indore and at Delhi as to how the shares in these companies were permitted to be listed. It is suggested that there is a strong case for the delisting of shares of such companies in view of the undue advantage taken by them and the colossal loss of wealth-tax involved. It is suggested further that the Central Government may take up the matter with the respective stock exchanges. One has to read these brief notes along with the report of the Special Cell which came into the bands of the tax authorities in February, 1970. It appears from these two documents that on examination of share transactions of some of the closely held companies of the Birla group including the Central India Industries Ltd., it has been found that a few stock exchange transactions ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the Company Law Department ignoring the maintainable profit of the last five years. According to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular the Wealth-tax Officer is to take the average of the two, namely, (1) break-up value, and (2) average of the last five years' maintainable profit. Here again, market quotations of shares exist and these quotations can be brushed aside only when evidence of collusive transactions can be established. This third basic document is of great importance for purposes of the present application. This document contains the reactions of the tax authorities to the Company Law Department's report. The tax authorities in August, 1970, observed the difference between the break-up value and the market value of the shares in Central India Industries Ltd. They have taken into consideration the view of the Company Law Department that the market quotations are manipulated and based on collusive transactions. They are of the view that in spite of all that has been found the market quotations cannot be ignored in the absence of evidence of manipulation and evidence of collusive transactions. The search for this evidence began at this stage as we shall see fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Industries Ltd. at Rs. 12.60 from Sri Kissen Jhawar of Indore and these were sold by him to Mulchand Goda two days later at Rs. 12.65 per share. It would be noticed, says the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, that the shares sold by M/s. Bansidhar Sitaram Co. on August 10, 1966, were returned to them within a period of 14 days after having passed through the hands of Ramnarayan Agarwalla of Indore and M/s. Nandalal Co. of Calcutta. Says the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner "the bogus nature of the transactions is self-evident" (vide page 33 of Srinivasan's affidavit). The report of the Income-tax Officer, Indore, in his letter dated the 2nd September 1970, (vide page 34 of Srinivasan's affidavit), on which the opinion of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is based, states the following facts : 1. That the transactions in the case of shares of Central India Industries Ltd. were made through M/s. Pushkarlal Co., Indore, whose account books were called for and examined under section 131. 2. The account books revealed the following transactions : (a) March 26, 1962--Pushkarlal Agarwalla purchased 100 shares of Central India from Srikissen Jhawar of Indore a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed above had reached were not backed by adequate or convincing evidence. Strictly speaking, they were surmises or conjectures and in order to confirm them further evidence was necessary. It is in this context that the Wealth-tax Officer completed the petitioners' assessment for 1968-69 on the basis of the stock-exchange quotations which the petitioners were relying on. In other words, his opinion was that the relevant quotations represented the price the shares would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date : vide section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. There is a difference between "conclusion" and "facts or materials for conclusion". The conclusion of the Wealth-tax Officer's superior authorities might have been that the transactions were bogus. But the requisite facts or materials for that conclusion were not on record. In these circumstances, it seems to us, that the Wealth-tax Officer who has to make the assessment upon drawing inferences from the primary facts disclosed by the assessee and other facts discovered by him would be justified in completing the assessment by accepting the quoted value of the shares in a recognised stock exchange. Let us now ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these shares at Indore (from Messrs. Bansidhar Sitaram) and is unable to show any correspondence in which any instructions in this regard were given. Shri Ramnarayan Agarwalla's books when examined show that there were no entries showing sales from Pushkarlal to Ramnarayan Agarwalla of Indore on August 10, 1966. Moreover, Ramnarayan Agarwalla stated on oath that he had not entered into any transaction with Pushkarlal for purchasing these shares (paragraphs 12 and 13 of the letter dated 14th March, 1973, at pages 66 to 67). On this evidence on record the nature of the transactions is apparent until facts to the contrary are proved. The second transaction is dated the 24th August, 1966. Pushkarlal on this day is shown to have purchased 200 shares from Ramnarayan Agarwalla at Rs. 13 per share and sold them to Bansidhar Sitaram on the same day at Rs. 13.25 per share. There is no entry relating to this sale in the books of Ramnarayan Agarwalla who had stated on oath that he had not entered into any such transactions with Pushkarlal. Pushkarlal stated that a transaction did take place and that he had made payment of Rs. 20 being the difference by cheque. On enquiry it is found to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection discovered certain other features of share transactions in Central India Industries Ltd., which were not known to the tax authorities at any time prior to this investigation. These other features are as follows : 1. Pushkarlal admitted that the transactions which took place in Indore in March, 1962, between him and Ramnaryan Agarwalla and one Srikissen Jhawar were settled without giving or taking actual delivery of shares (paragraph 12 of the letter dated March 14, 1973, at page 67 of the paper book.) 2. Enquiries in Calcutta revealed that Messrs. Bansidhar Sitaram and Nandalal Co. were closely inter-connected ; both had tables adjoining each other in a hall ; the proprietor of Nandalal Co. (Sri Nandalal Pasari) was a sub-tenant of Messrs. Bansidhar Sitaram Co. ; and one of the partners of Bansidhar Sitaram Co. (Sri Purushottamdas Pasari) was a cousin of Nandalal Pasari (paragragh 14 of the letter dated March 14, 1973, at pages 67 and 68 of the paper book.) 3. Nowhere are the distinctive numbers of shares alleged to have been bought and sold mentioned--not even in the books of account of Bansidhar Sitaram and Nandalal Co. (paragraph 15 of the letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the provisions of sections 147(a) and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were again considered. While making a best judgment assessment the Income-tax Officer had discovered certain transactions evidenced by the drafts which the assessee had not disclosed. In spite of this discovery and the knowledge of all the material facts the Income-tax Officer did not make necessary enquiries and draw inferences as to whether the amounts invested in the purchase of the drafts could be treated as part of the total income of the assessee during the relevant year. It was held that it was plainly a case of oversight and the Income-tax Officer could not take recourse to section 147(a) to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight and that, therefore, the notice under section 148 should be quashed. In our case prior to the 14th March, 1973, the tax authorities were stating that the stock exchange transactions were bogus ; but they could not secure convincing evidence of collusion or manipulation to satisfy themselves that the quotations in the stock exchange should be discarded and some other methods of valuation adopted. Enquiries were carried on to discover evidence and as soon as definite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ultimately from the primary facts and further facts inferred from them, the authority has to draw the proper legal inferences. The Supreme Court has said further that once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. In this case on the 7th January, 1972, the Wealth-tax Officer had the quotations in the stock exchange which the assessees placed before him and the four other basic documents we have referred to. To disbelieve the quotations it was not enough for him that some of the authorities were taking the view that the stock exchange transactions were bogus. He required firm and cogent evidence to repudiate the quotations which was not available to him. In these premises he adopted the stock exchange quotations for ascertaining the valuation of the shares for wealth-tax purposes. We cannot say that he was guilty of negligence or oversight. In the result, this application is dismissed. The rule nisi is discharged. All interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.--I have had the advantage of reading the judgment in draft which has been delivered by my Lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment and the reopening was only at the behest of the other authorities. There is nothing improper in law for an authority who is to take action on his own to take into consideration the expressions of opinion by other authorities provided he exercises the discretion which the statute vests upon him. I agree that it has not been clearly established that that discretion was not exercised. The main ground of challenge in this case is, however, whether there were materials either under clause (a) or under clause (b) of section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the reopening of the assessment. We are concerned here with the valuation given by the assessee in respect of his holding of the shares in Central India Industries Ltd. The original assessment was completed. on the 7th of January, 1972. In respect of these shares the valuation had been on the basis of the quotations in Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange at Indore. The Act enjoins under section 7(1) that the Wealth-tax Officer should estimate the value of the asset on the basis of the price which in the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer the asset would fetch if sold on the relevant valuation date in the open market. The rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th-tax Officer to have rejected the said quotations in view of the fact that the quotation was in respect of transactions long anterior to the relevant valuation date. Where a share continues in the quotation list of a stock exchange I am doubtful whether it could be said that there was any further duty for the assessee to disclose the basis of the transaction upon which that quotation was made. If, therefore, the validity of this notice had to be judged solely on the grounds mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act, I would have found it difficult to uphold the said notice in the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the materials which were already on record as disclosed in the four basic documents, when the Wealth-tax Officer completed the original assessment for the relevant assessment year, namely, 7th January, 1972. It is, however, in my opinion not necessary to express any definite conclusion under clause (a) of section 17(1) of the Act. Where a notice for reopening is challenged, on the materials adduced before the court, the court must be satisfied that there were materials either under clause (a) or under clause (b) of section 17(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as facts which go to establish or corroborate the belief that the transactions were colourable and collusive, and can be treated as new information. How far new facts affect the quality of knowledge so as to constitute new information, is a question which is not easy of solution. But when my Lords have taken the view that there was new information contained in the fifth basic document, I am content to agree, though not without some doubts, that this was a case of change of opinion supported by new facts, which is permissible in law. In the premises, I would uphold the notice under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section (17) of the Act. I, therefore, agree with the order proposed by my Lord. SALIL KUMAR DATTA J.--I agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Chief Justice as also the reasons in support thereof and the order proposed. I am, however, unable to agree with my learned brother, Mukharji J. in his tentative conclusion that once the assessee has disclosed the quotations of shares of a recognised stock exchange such disclosure is to be accepted as full and true disclosure under the Act of all basic primary facts regarding the valuation of assets on a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
