Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
What has to be seen is whether the Income tax Officer could
have reason to believe that by reason of commissioner or
failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and
truly all material facts ,necessary for his assessment there
had been escapement of in-come ? The High Court rightly
relied on the observations in the majority judgment in
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income tax Officer, Companies
District 1 Calcutta & Another(1) that in every assessment
proceeding the assessing ',authority will, for the purpose
of computing or determining the proper tax, require to know
all the facts which help him in coming to the correct
conclusion. From the primary facts in his possession
whether on disclosure by the assessee or discovered by him
on the basis of facts disclosed or otherwise the assessing
authority has to draw inferences as regards certain other
facts and ultimately from the primary facts and the further
facts inferred from them the authority has to draw the
proper legal inferences. Therefore, the duty of disclosing
all ,the primary facts lies' on the assessee. The primary
facts were admittedly within the knowledge of the Income tax
Officer at the time when he completed the first reassessment
under S. 34. This is clear from the order of the Appellate
Assistant Commissioner to whom the Income tax Officer
reported that in the course of reassessment under s. 34 in
respect of individual members it became apparent that "they
acted as merely name lenders of the "Hindu Undivided Family
and that the total, sum of Rs. 1,10,000 encashed by them
actually belonged to the Hindu Undivided
(1) 41 I.T.R. 191.
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
1