https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6734 Sections 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(b) were treated as distinct and mutually exclusive reopening provisions resting on different jurisdictional facts. The Tribunal could examine whether the reassessment actually made was lawful, but it could not convert an assessment reopened under clause (a) into one under clause (b) merely because clause (b) might also have been available. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to substitute clause (b), and that point was decided in favour of the assessee. On the facts, the reassessment was valid under clause (a) because material credits had not been fully and truly disclosed in the original proceedings, so the reopening and reassessment were upheld for the Revenue. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6734 Sections 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(b) were treated as distinct and mutually exclusive reopening provisions resting on different jurisdictional facts. The Tribunal could examine whether the reassessment actually made was lawful, but it could not convert an assessment reopened under clause (a) into one under clause (b) merely because clause (b) might also have been available. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to substitute clause (b), and that point was decided in favour of the assessee. On the facts, the reassessment was valid under clause (a) because material credits had not been fully and truly disclosed in the original proceedings, so the reopening and reassessment were upheld for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6734