https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276299 Reassessment was sustained because the assessee omitted a primary fact - that minors admitted to partnership benefits were his sons - which was material to computing taxable total income. The court applied the principle that an assessee must disclose all primary facts necessary for assessment and held that the omission justified reopening under section 34; consequently the assessing authority properly invoked the rule requiring inclusion of minors' partnership shares in the assessee's total income under section 16(3). Prior decisions favouring taxpayers were distinguished on disclosed-fact grounds. en-us Fri, 21 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2018 15:54:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276299 Reassessment was sustained because the assessee omitted a primary fact - that minors admitted to partnership benefits were his sons - which was material to computing taxable total income. The court applied the principle that an assessee must disclose all primary facts necessary for assessment and held that the omission justified reopening under section 34; consequently the assessing authority properly invoked the rule requiring inclusion of minors' partnership shares in the assessee's total income under section 16(3). Prior decisions favouring taxpayers were distinguished on disclosed-fact grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276299