Reassessment for nondisclosure upheld, but unappropriated receipt was not taxable as income of the year.

Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld where the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure of material facts and later account evidence showed income had escaped assessment. A fresh notice under section 34 was held unnecessary because a valid notice had already been issued and the appellate direction only required the assessment to be redone according to law. On taxability, an unappropriated receipt of Rs. 1,50,000 was not treated as taxable income for the year, since no specific appropriation was proved and the presumption most favourable to the taxpayer applied against the revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was valid and properly invoked on the facts; (ii) whether the reassessment made after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the earlier order required a fresh notice under section 34; (iii) whether the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was taxable as income of the accounting year.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was valid and properly invoked on the facts.

Analysis: The original assessment did not contain any conclusive determination that the amount had been received and postponed for the next year. The later reassessment was supported by additional material, including the relevant account entries and supporting evidence, which established receipt in the accounting year. The assessee had continued to deny receipt and had not made a full and true disclosure of the material facts necessary for assessment. The conditions for action under section 34(1)(a), namely reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reason of such omission or failure, were satisfied.

Conclusion: The reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was valid and was rightly invoked, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment made after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the earlier order required a fresh notice under section 34.

Analysis: A valid notice had already been issued before the first reassessment order. The appellate direction to re-do the assessment according to law after giving opportunity to the assessee did not annul the notice itself. The earlier order was set aside because of procedural infirmity in the manner of using evidence, not because the statutory foundation for reopening had disappeared. A fresh notice was therefore not a condition precedent to the second reassessment.

Conclusion: A fresh notice under section 34 was not required, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was taxable as income of the accounting year.

Analysis: The amount had not been brought into the assessee's books and there was nothing to show that it had been specifically appropriated either to principal or to interest. In a dispute between taxpayer and revenue, an open payment may be appropriated in the manner least disadvantageous to the taxpayer. The presumption applicable between debtor and creditor as to appropriation to interest first does not govern the relation between assessee and revenue. On that footing, the receipt could not be treated as taxable interest income of the year.

Conclusion: The sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was not taxable as income of the accounting year, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee on the reassessment questions but in his favour on the taxability of the sum received, leaving him entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) is valid where the assessee has failed to make a full and true disclosure of material facts and later material shows escapement of income, and in disputes with the revenue an unappropriated receipt is to be treated on the footing most favourable to the taxpayer unless a contrary appropriation is established.

---