https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181064 Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was invalid because the primary facts concerning the bank draft and related credits had already been disclosed, so there was no omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and the notice founded on that basis could not stand. The best judgment estimate of undisclosed investment and notional profits was also unsustainable because the record contained no material evidence of secret investment or of profits accruing in the relevant year; an assessment cannot rest on suspicion or conjecture. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on both substantive issues. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:37:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181064 Reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was invalid because the primary facts concerning the bank draft and related credits had already been disclosed, so there was no omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and the notice founded on that basis could not stand. The best judgment estimate of undisclosed investment and notional profits was also unsustainable because the record contained no material evidence of secret investment or of profits accruing in the relevant year; an assessment cannot rest on suspicion or conjecture. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on both substantive issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181064