https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168692 Reassessment under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was held valid where the assessee had previously accepted that capital used in the wife's cinema business had been advanced by him, so omission of that amount from the later return could be treated as failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The notice was not invalid merely because it did not specify the precise clause of section 34(1), as the statute required service of notice and prescribed no particular form. On the income issue, the Tribunal was entitled to infer that the sum standing in the business capital account represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources, since no alternative source was shown. Both issues were answered for the Revenue. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:49:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168692 Reassessment under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was held valid where the assessee had previously accepted that capital used in the wife's cinema business had been advanced by him, so omission of that amount from the later return could be treated as failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The notice was not invalid merely because it did not specify the precise clause of section 34(1), as the statute required service of notice and prescribed no particular form. On the income issue, the Tribunal was entitled to infer that the sum standing in the business capital account represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources, since no alternative source was shown. Both issues were answered for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168692