https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182739 Reopening of assessment under section 34(1)(b) was held valid because the Income-tax Officer later obtained material from the company's memorandum and articles showing that a financial year ending 31 March existed, and the earlier view had been founded on suppression of a vital fact rather than a mere change of opinion. Service of notice on the secretary of the managing director was also treated as effective service on the company, since a principal officer may include such an authorised recipient and the company acknowledged receipt. The best judgment estimate of gross profits at 15% was upheld because the accounts were unreliable and the Tribunal's reduced estimate was based on relevant material, not arbitrariness. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2016 17:55:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182739 Reopening of assessment under section 34(1)(b) was held valid because the Income-tax Officer later obtained material from the company's memorandum and articles showing that a financial year ending 31 March existed, and the earlier view had been founded on suppression of a vital fact rather than a mere change of opinion. Service of notice on the secretary of the managing director was also treated as effective service on the company, since a principal officer may include such an authorised recipient and the company acknowledged receipt. The best judgment estimate of gross profits at 15% was upheld because the accounts were unreliable and the Tribunal's reduced estimate was based on relevant material, not arbitrariness. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182739