TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (5) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal shares. Thereafter, the said manganese ore mines and kyanite ore mines in Orissa and Bihar, of which the petitioner was the sole owner as aforesaid, were transferred to the said company for a total consideration of Rs. 29,91,133. After payment of certain amounts to the petitioner by cheque from the company in respect of the said consideration, on April 1, 1959, a sum of Rs. 24,86,633 was shown in the books of the company as a loan from the petitioner. On February 13, 1960, a date which is relevant for the assessment year 1960-61, Rs. 5,00,000 was paid by the company to the petitioner by the issue of 5,000 fully paid up equity shares of Rs. 100 each. For the assessment year 1960-61, the regular assessment of the petitioner was m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter that, at the time of the original assessment, these materials with regard to the alleged exchange of the capital asset, namely, the issue of 5,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 cash from the company in favour of the petitioner were placed before the Income-tax Officer, who made the original assessment and all particulars relating to the petitioner's transaction with Messrs. S. Lal & Co. Private Ltd. were also furnished before the said Income-tax Officer and there were verbal discussions also with the client's representative at the time of the original assessment. Hence, it was contended, that there was no omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all materials necessary for the assessment for that year wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 5,00,000 for shares of the said company of identical value has been made the only ground for re-opening the assessment in the present case. It is contended by Dr. Debi Pal that the petitioner having thrown a specific challenge that these facts were before the original assessing officer, namely, Shri A. K. Jana, and that these facts were fully considered by him, the only person who could really contradict that allegation is Shri Jana himself. He contended that in the absence of any statement on oath before me by Shri Jana that these facts were not placed before him, I should draw the inference that the petitioner's challenge has gone un contradicted. He further contended that even the Income-tax Officer who, has issued the impugned not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y personal knowledge of the assessment proceedings for the relevant years. The deponents also did not claim that their informations were derived from the Income-tax Officers of that time, namely, Kazi, Gopinathan and Pradhan, who were the officers who dealt with the cases in course of the regular assessment proceedings. This kind of denial by persons who had no knowledge of the proceedings was strongly commented upon by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court. To the same effect is a decision of this court in the case of Narasingh das Bagree v. Income-tax Officer, " B " Ward, Dist. 1(1), Calcutta. Sinha J.(as he then was) observed as follows : " The Income-tax Officer who issued the notice under section 34(1)(a) was Mr. M. S. Mann. H....