TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (2) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under article 226 of the Constitution by the assessee challenging the notices issued under section 148 read with sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, all dated March 7, 1973, relating to the Assessment year 1965-66. The notice under section 148 was on the basis of three cash credit entries dated August 22, 1964, from Meghraj Dulichand, Associated Commercial Organisation P. Ltd. and Laxminarain Atmaram, the first two being for sum of Rs. 30,000 each and the last one for a sum of Rs. 40,000. The High Court ultimately found: "The result is that the notice dated 7th March, 1973, was within jurisdiction only in regard to the cash credit entry from the firm, Meghraj Dulichand of Calcutta. In regard to the other two tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment, he would require the assessee to furnish fresh return and the entire assessment proceeding has to be redone after the assessee furnishes the return. In the present case, along with the notice under section 148 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer did call upon the assessee to furnish a return as required under section 142 of the Act. That notice casts an obligation on the assessee to make a fresh return and therein it was obliged to make a complete disclosure of its income in accordance with law and it was open to the Income-tax Officer to examine not only the three items referred to in the notice but also whatever came within the legitimate ambit of an assessment proceeding. This being the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as regards part of the income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax by the assessee, he is entitled to issue a notice either under clause (a) or (b), as the case may be, under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act." After extracting section 22(2), the High Court proceeded to say (at page 466) : "What emerges from sub-section (2) of section 22 is that when once an assessee is required to submit a return of his income, he is obliged to disclose the totality of his income. The question that falls to be decided on the language of these two sections is whether after notice is issued under section 34(1)(a) the assessment should be limited to items which escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view taken by the two High Courts has been supported by this court in V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT and CEPT [1970] 75 ITR 373. There, repelling the same argument on behalf of the assessee, this court said (at page 380) : "This argument is not of much avail to the appellant because once proceedings under section 34 are taken to be validly initiated with regard to two-thirds share of the income, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer cannot be confined only to that portion of the income. Section 34 in terms states that once the Income-tax Officer decides to reopen the assessment he could do so within the period prescribed by serving on the person liable to pay tax a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en made for the assessment year 1965-66 on January 22, 1966. Notice under section 147 of the Act was issued on March 7, 1973, i.e., more than seven years after the assessment had been completed. The three amounts mentioned in the notice under section 148 of the Act were found in the assessee's accounts by the Income-tax Officer when he examined the same in the course of the assessment proceedings. He had called upon the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions and the assessee had produced material to support the same. The Incometax Officer accepted the documents produced and treated all the three transactions to be genuine and on that footing completed the assessment. The primary facts were before the Income-tax Officer....