TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned assessment year is 1994-1995. The assessee was issued a notice for scrutiny for such assessment year on March 4, 1997. The petitioner had replied thereto by writing dated March 11, 1997. An order under Section 143[3] in respect of such assessment year was passed on March 31, 1997. Being aggrieved by certain portions of such assessment order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal therefrom. So far as the impugned notice is concerned, it relates to assessment of claim on account of acquisition of technical knowhow. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with a foreign supplier for the purpose of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be quashed. Learned Advocate for the Department has submitted that, the Assessing Officer was correct in issuing the impugned order. The reasons necessitating the Assessing Officer to pass the impugned order is as stated in the impugned order itself. He, however, has not been equipped necessary instructions by the Department to make any further submission. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The petitioner has impugned a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated March 31, 2001 relating to an assessment year 1994-1995 in the present writ petition. The reasons for issuance of such notice had been disclosed by the Department in the affidavit in opposition. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not disclose the transactions evidenced by the drafts which the Income Tax Officer discovered. After this discovery the Income Tax Officer had in his possession all the primary facts, and it was for him to make necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amounts invested in the purchase of the drafts could be treated as part of the total income of the assessee during the rerlevant year. This the Income Tax Officer did not do. It was plainly a case of oversight, and it cannot be said that the income chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts. The Income Tax Officer had all the m....