Ratanlal Mohta And Sons vs Income-Tax Officer, "C" Ward And Ors. on 10 June, 1982
sequently, those persons were found to be bogus persons and there was an admission by the assessee of such facts amongst others, i.e., loans were not being genuine loans but represented its own money introduced in such names, by the petition dated June 22, 1965, before the Commissioner, West Bengal, under Section 271(4A) of the said Act and, furthermore, in the concerned enquiries none of the alleged loan creditors, even though duly summoned, appeared, and some of them could not even be traced. Such being the position, applying the test and principles as laid down in the case of CIT v. Nathuram Gokulka , it can very well be said, found and observed that there were materials or reasonable nexus to the formation of the belief, that in the original assessment, the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed the relevant materials for the said assessment and, as such, the officer concerned could also form a tentative belief and that too in view of the discrepant statements as mentioned hereinbefore or available from the assessee. Such being the position, this court would not be justified in determining or deliberating at this stage, whether these materials were sufficient or was true or not and the officer concerned, on relevant materials or as would be lead at the concerned proceedings, would be entitled to decide and also to find out the truth or otherwise of the same. The concerned officer would also be entitled to decide and find out on such evidence or materials as led and produced, whether the statements in the disclosure petition under Section 271(4A) of the said Act, could be considered to be as sufficient materials attracting the imposition of the penalty or if such proceeding was barred by time.