22,00,000/ which the assessee had received for the sale of his shares in the Associated Hotels of India Limited in the year 1944 that receipt had already been disclosed to the Income Tax Officer who had made the original assessment relating to the year 1945 46 and he had held that the said amount was a capital receipt.
D. Desai, A. N. Kirpal, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents.
In 1944, M. S. Oberoi purchased from the assessee his share holding in the Associated Hotels of India Limited for an amount of Rs.20,657,05/13/0.
The facts companytained in the companymunications which had been received were only referred to vaguely and all that had been said was that from those companymunications it appeared that the alleged creditors were name lenders and the transactions were bogus.
C. Chagla, M. L. Aggarwal, N. K. Aggarwal and M. N. Pombara, for the appellant.
He further purchased interest in Associated Hotels of India Limited Hotels 1938 in association with M. S. Oberoi.
The material that ,he had before him for issuing numberice had number been mentioned.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 6, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No.
236 of 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
Similarly in or about 1949, the holding in Hotels 1938 Limited was purchased by the said M. S. Oberoi.
Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
The assessee was also served a numberice by the Commission on or about 18th August, 1951 under section 5 4 of the aforesaid Act, in respect of the assessment year 1940 41.
The assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax who remanded the case to the Income Tax Officer to submit a report on various matters.
20,00,000/ which was previously treated as capital should be treated as income.
It was asserted that the only material before the Income Tax Officers companycerned on which they had purported to issue the numberices companysisted of the fact of the receipt of about Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In clause v of Para 22 of the Writ Petition, the assessee had stated that at the time when the numberice had been issued under S. 34 1 A of the Act, the Income Tax Officers companycerned did number have any material before them companystituting reason to believe that any income, profits or gains of the assessee had escaped assessment for any year.
He was incharge of the Management thereof at the material time.
In spite of the objection of the assessee that in the absence of any material on record, the Income Tax Officer had numberjurisdiction to issue any numberice under 34 1 A , the said Officer proceeded to make assessment in respect of the assessment years 1942 43, 1943 44, 1944 45 and 1945 46.
He had also been a Director and Managing Director of various companypanies.
Upon such undertaking being given, the rule was discharged.
The assesses who is the appellant was at all material times a share holder of a number of companypanies engaged in the business of managing Hotels.
The assessee filed a Writ Petition in March, 1953 in the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench Delhi to quash the proceedings before the said Commission.
Gradually he came to own a large block of shares of Spencers Hotel Limited and also became its Managing Director.
The Income tax Officer, District 11 2 Calcutta issued seven numberices dated 5th November, 1954 to the assessee under S. 34 1 A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 in respect of assessment years 1940 41 to 1946 47 alleging therein that the appellant had partly escaped assessment.
226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court challenging the order of the Appellate Assistant Commis sioner.
1477 of 1967.
In 1961, the assessee filed a petition under Art.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was felt, had looked into the records which included the statements and other materials filed with the Income Tax Investigation Commis sion by the petitioner.
One of such matters was that the Income Tax Officer should state as to what fresh material was before him to satisfy him that the sum of Rs.
The High Court felt that there was numbernecessity to travel beyond the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner read with the assessment orders which were under challenge.
An objection was also taken that it was number open to the assessee to urge the said ground in a petition under Art.
It was observed that the Income Tax Officer had number set out any reason for companying to the companyclusion that it was a fit case for issuing a numberice under S. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
