TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (3) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee's account as yield from his own agricultural lands. He felt that the yield was inflated. After making the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62, the ITO reopened the assessments for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. For the assessment year 1960-61 with which we are concerned, the assessee had recorded in his books that he had milled 80 candies of paddy which was obtained from his own agricultural lands. The ITO observed that the assessee owned only about 36 acres of wet land and according to the adangal registers, the sworn deposition of the village karnam and explanation filed by the assessee in connection with the assessment year 1955-57, the assessee could have obtained only 30 candies of paddy for that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stance in the assessee's contention that s. 147(a) was not applicable and the assessment was not barred by limitation. On further appeal, the Appellate, Tribunal also held that the proceedings under s. 147(a) are valid since some of the primary facts for the purpose of judging as to whether the assessee's yield from his agricultural lands, as entered in his books of account, was correct had not been disclosed by the assessee to the Department. The Tribunal observed that the only material which the assessee had placed before the ITO at the time of the original assessment was that he possessed some lands from which he had received some quantity of paddy, but he did not disclose the most material information regarding the extent of the land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct or not. The only material which he had placed before the ITO at the time of the original assessment was that he possessed some lands from which he had received some paddy. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that he had not disclosed the primary facts and that the reassessment was covered by s. 147(a). It was, however, argued by Sri Dasaratharama Reddi, learned counsel for the applicant, that the Tribunal was wrong in stating that the assessee had not disclosed the extent of the land or the nature of the land owned by him. The question whether the assessee had disclosed the extent and nature of the land or not is a question of fact and, in this reference, we are bound by the Tribunal's finding of fact, name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finding of fact made by the Appellate Tribunal and it is for the person who has applied for a reference to challenge those findings first by an application under s. 66(1) (old Act). If he has failed to file an application expressly raising , the question about the validity of the findings of fact, he is not entitled to urge before the High Court that the findings are vitiated for one reason or another. This decision was followed in Hazarat Pi Shah Saheb Roza Committee v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 490 (SC). Apart from this, even if he had disclosed the extent of the land, if the assessee did not disclose the correct income from the land, we are of the view that he could still be said to have not disclosed a primary fact. It may be that he may have d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question for reference as follows: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is material for the Tribunal to hold that the reassessment proceedings are made under section 147(a) of the Act and not section 147(b) of the Act and the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee has suppressed the fact about the ownership of 36 acres of land at the time of original assessment is based on no evidence?" This application is opposed by the respondent. Regarding the prayer to call for a supplementary statement, under s. 258 of the Act, it is no doubt open to the High Court to refer the case back to the Tribunal for the purpose of making such additions thereto or alterations therein as it may direct in that behalf.....