9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue a firm stand was taken that the reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s. 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act. In other grounds sustaining of the addition of Rs. 6,000 made in the reassessment is contested. 2. Necessary facts are that the original assessment in the case was made u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The ITO, thereafter, from the assessment record itself noticed that the assessee had constructed one shop-cum-godown in Anaj Mandi, Hansi, and that the cost of construction as shown in the statement of income filed projected only Rs. 15,000. It is nobody's case that the fact of construction was not disclosed by the assessee while filling his original return. At this stage, we like to notice the provisions of s. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) give the effect to the allowance referred to in sub-section (2) of s. 32, the deduction referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33 or clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33A or clause (1) of sub-section (2) of section 35 or sub-section (1) of section 35A or sub-section (1) of section 35D or sub-section (1) of section 35E or the first proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, any loss carried forward under sub- section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) of section 74 and the deficiency referred to in sub-section (3) of section 80J as computed in each case in the regular assessment, if any, for the earlier assessment year or years". 3. What precisely happened in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars set of facts was sufficient to enable him to take recourse to reassessment, as completed u/s. 147(a) of the Act. We find such submission to be wholly wrong. 4. Next contention raised by the ld. departmental representative was that the agitation of the assessee contesting reassessment should not be entertained as such contention in terms was not raised before the AAC in the first appeal. For the appellant, Sh. D.S. Gupta, Advocate, submitted that on the admitted facts the issue of re-opening of the assessment as a legal ground could be raised by the assessee and the revenue should not think the responsibility of facing such contention. He very strongly argued that the question of jurisdiction of the ITO cuts at the very roots of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment, we have in our focus the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) and the observations of their Lordships that the words 'omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year', used in s. 34 of the Indian IT Act, 1922 (corresponding to s. 147(a) of the Act) postulated a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. But, what facts are material and necessary for assessment differed from case to case. So, far as primary facts were concerned, the duty of a taxpayer did not extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. Once all the primary facts wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
