9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the reassessments made by the Income-tax Officer, under s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1952-53, 1954-55 and 1956-57. 2. In-as-much as, in our opinion, the questions set out in the reference applications are not questions of law arising out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we decline to draw up a statement of the case and refer these questions to the Hon'ble High Court for its decision. We now proceed to give our reasons in support of our decision. 3. The assessments already made for the three assessment years under consideration were reopened by the Income-tax Officer by the issuance of notices under s. 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961 after the lapse of more than 8 years from the end of the respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 147(A) for reopening the assessment year 53-54." It would appear that similar reasons were recorded in the proposals submitted by the Income-tax Officer to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for the reopening of the assessments for the other two assessment years under consideration. After obtaining the approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the assessee, under s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the assessee to submit returns for the three assessment years. Over-ruling the objections of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer completed the reassessments including in the assessee's total income the amounts mentioned below on the ground that incomes escaped assessment on account of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting that it wanted to make a disclosure before the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 271 (4A) on the basis of the books seized by the department and also upon the assessee's subsequent letter dated 4th December, 1965 repeating that request. It was further contended before the Tribunal by the Departmental Representative that the Income-tax Officer prepared notes on an examination of the books of accounts that were seized and that according to those notes, the income that escaped assessment for each year was of the order of more than Rs. 50,000. The question as to whether the Income-tax Officer had any material for his belief that the assessee's income escaped assessment as consequence of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the alleged notes of the Income-tax Officer on the examination of the assessee's books of account were not brought to our notice or placed before us, we cannot take cognizance of them. In the case of Chugamal Rajpal, 79 ITR 603 more or less similar report was submitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Income-tax Officer. It was observed by the Court in that case that the report of the Income-tax Officer did not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that it was a fit case to issue notice under s. 148 and that the material that he had before him for issuing notice was not mentioned in the report nor had he mentioned the facts contained in the communications referred to by him in that report. The court further observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e jurisdiction under s. 147(A) of the Act is not the finally assessed income as held in the case of Fatehchand Jairamdas vs. CIT (88 ITR 225), We also do not find anything in the case of Manik Chand Nahata to support the stand of the department as in that case the court besides observing that the expression "likely to amount to" meant that the Income-tax Officer must form some kind of belief or even a suspicion before the notice under s. 34 of the old Act (Corresponding to s. 147 of the Act of 1961) was issued that the amount of escaped income for the year or any other year might amount to Rs. 1 lakh or more in the aggregate, also observed that there must be some material to hold that the amount of escaped income was likely to exceed Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letters did not form enclosures to the report of the ITO to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The mistake, if there is any, in the finding of the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be said to be a mistake apparent from record, by which it meant record before the Tribunal when it decided this issue. Admittedly, the correspondence between the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which is said to bear out the Department's contention, was not produced before the Tribunal at the hearing, the Tribunal perused the records of the ITO, produced before it, and satisfied itself that those letters did not form enclosures to the report of the ITO to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The mistake, if there is any, in the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
