https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7336 Reassessment under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as valid where the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed the primary facts material to assessment; disclosure of overdrafts against a call deposit account did not amount to disclosure of the deposits themselves, their source, or their taxable character. For the 1946-47 year, section 34(1A) did not exclude section 34(1)(a), because overlap alone does not amount to implied repeal absent irreconcilable repugnancy; the procedures and remedies were substantially the same, so no Article 14 discrimination arose. The reassessments for all three years were upheld in principle. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7336 Reassessment under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as valid where the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed the primary facts material to assessment; disclosure of overdrafts against a call deposit account did not amount to disclosure of the deposits themselves, their source, or their taxable character. For the 1946-47 year, section 34(1A) did not exclude section 34(1)(a), because overlap alone does not amount to implied repeal absent irreconcilable repugnancy; the procedures and remedies were substantially the same, so no Article 14 discrimination arose. The reassessments for all three years were upheld in principle. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7336