TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (6) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above years which were served on March 22, 1962. The assessee in response to the above notice submitted returns showing income of Rs. 4,34,024 for the assessment year 1950-51 and Rs. 2,12,839 for the assessment year 1951-52 being incomes on which it was originally finally assessed. In Part " D " of the return the assessee a ISO showed amounts of Rs. 87,225 and Rs. 81, 141 with the following details: 1950-51 1951-52 (i) Credits in Balkishenlal Jankiprasad, Liquidators, Madras a/c 48,979 39,841 (ii) Credits in empty barrels and tins a/c. 39,246 41,300 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e despatched to Delhi where they were sold and the sale proceeds thereof were later on remitted to Calcutta from Delhi. It were these amounts which, on receipt of remittances, were credited to the above account. The ITO issued various notices and allowed opportunity to the assessee to prove its claim that the amounts were not taxable. According to the Tribunal, the assessee failed to produce its books of account on the ground that these had been lost. Realising these difficulties Sri Raghunath Prasad Poddar, one of the partners of the assessee-firm in his letter dated June 24, 1967, addressed to the ITO submitted that even if their explanations were not accepted, the ITO could assess Rs. 1,00,617 for the assessment year 1950-51 and Rs. 33,800 for the assessment year 1951-52, on the basis of the financial years. From this submission, the ITO inferred that the assessee had admitted that the above amounts represented its escaped income. The ITO also discussed the facts of the remittances with details and refused to accept the assessee's explanation that the receipts of the amounts either represented the realisations on behalf of the firm dissolved in 1934 or that these represented ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad, Liquidator, Madras. 31-12-49 Rs. 78,976-15-6 (cr.) 31-12-50 Rs. 1,18,817-10-6 (cr.) (ii) Radhakishen Balkishenlal, Narayanganj. 31-12-49 Rs. 5,73,767-7-11 (cr.) 31-12-50 Rs. 5,77,988-6-8 (cr.) The ITO had called for clarification on many points and, ultimately, the assessments were completed on March 14, 1955 and March 13, 1956, respectively, for 1950-51 and 1951-52. These assessments had become final by the order of the I.T.A.T. on December 17, 1957, for the first year and that of the AAC on January 22, 1959, for the second year. It would appear, that the appellant-firm was reconstituted in 1934, when partners representing the interests of M/s. Deopchand Poddar, Gurupratap Poddar and Anadilal Poddar left the firm and the remaining partners continued the firm thereafter. All the dues from customers prior to 1934 were not ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 5,73,767-7-11 as on December 31, 1949 and Rs. 5,77,988-6-8 as on December 31, 1950, as per Calcutta Nayabahi account. The value of barrels and tins sent from Narayanganj to Delhi amounting to Rs. 75,130 was debited on December 31, 1948, to Balkishenlal empty barrels tins account (L.F. 202 of the 1948 Calcutta books) and credited to Radhakishen Balkishenlal, Narayanganj account. In the year 1949, the balance of Rs, 75,130 was brought forward and the sale proceeds of barrels and tins amounting to Rs. 38,245-15-9 between August 9, 1949, and December 26, 1949 were credited in Radhakishen Balkishenlal empty barrels tins accounts (LF 188). The balance of Rs. 36,844-1-3 had been carried forward in the 1950 books. In the year 1950, sale proceeds of barrels and tins amounting to Rs. 41,300 were credited in the said Radhakishen Balkishenlal empty barrels tins account and the excess amount of Rs. 4,415-14-9 had been transferred to the current account of Radhakishen Balkishenlal, Narayanganj account. That was the reason the current account as per Calcutta books, had increased from Rs. 5,73,767-7-11 as on December 31, 1949 to Rs. 5,77,988 as on December 31, 1950. In the background of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s ground and there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material and relevant facts necessary for the assessment and as such the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. On this, the assessee made an application for a reference and it was submitted that the following two questions should be referred: " (i) Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer had recorded his reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings and the Central Board of Revenue was duly satisfied on such reasons recorded that it was a fit case for the issue of the notice under section 34(1)(a) as required by proviso (iii) to section 34(1) ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer under section 34(1)(a) as valid ? The Tribunal, however, reframed the questions and referred one question, which, according to it, was a comprehensive question, to us which is as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es the finding of the Tribunal that there was no such omission or failure was a finding of fact, and the application for reference was rightly rejected as no question of law arose. This principle was reiterated by a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Haripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 592. On behalf of the assessee, however, it was contended that such a proposition would be applicable where an assessee was disputing any item which the ITO was saying that it had not been disclosed, but the assessee was contending that it had been disclosed. According to the assessment, that was not the situation here. According to the assessee, there is in the instant case no dispute as to whether there was any dispute as to the facts. What was disclosed originally had been noted. It is also not an issue that there was any falsity in the disclosure made. The only question, according to the assessee, relevant in this case was whether the disclosure made was a full disclosure in terms of the requirements of the section. In such a case, the finding of the Tribunal was a finding of law and the question as framed was wide enough to cover the contention now soug....