https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39784 Delay and suppression did not bar the challenge to reopening where the assessee had repeatedly objected, sought disclosure, and no prejudice or acquiescence was shown. Jurisdiction under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on prima facie material supporting a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment because of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. A local enquiry suggesting the alleged creditor was not traceable supported the inference that the cash credit was not genuine, and a false disclosure did not satisfy the statutory duty of full and true disclosure. The reopening was therefore treated as valid and within jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:30:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39784 Delay and suppression did not bar the challenge to reopening where the assessee had repeatedly objected, sought disclosure, and no prejudice or acquiescence was shown. Jurisdiction under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on prima facie material supporting a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment because of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. A local enquiry suggesting the alleged creditor was not traceable supported the inference that the cash credit was not genuine, and a false disclosure did not satisfy the statutory duty of full and true disclosure. The reopening was therefore treated as valid and within jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39784