https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5092 Reassessment under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld on two grounds. Notices issued under section 34(1A) were not barred merely because they were sent after 31 March 1956, as the amended reopening power was construed to cover escaped income from the relevant years. The Income-tax Officer also had jurisdiction under section 34(1)(a) because material before him indicated undisclosed bank accounts, suspected cash credits and benami holdings, and the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts; mere production of books was insufficient. The reassessment notices were sustained and the challenge failed. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5092 Reassessment under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld on two grounds. Notices issued under section 34(1A) were not barred merely because they were sent after 31 March 1956, as the amended reopening power was construed to cover escaped income from the relevant years. The Income-tax Officer also had jurisdiction under section 34(1)(a) because material before him indicated undisclosed bank accounts, suspected cash credits and benami holdings, and the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts; mere production of books was insufficient. The reassessment notices were sustained and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5092