had a share of profit from the Mysore Premier Metal Factory Madras of which he was 9 partner.
He was also carrying on other business and was being assessed at Calcutta.
The Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave and the same has been granted.
The assessment for the year in question was companypleted some time in November 1958.
This appeal C. A. 1080 of 1971 will be disposed of by his judgment and for doing so we shall refer to the printed record in C. A. 1685 of 1968.
The Income tax Officer, however, companypleted the assessment for the aforesaid year as also the subsequent assessment year in which also the share of the income from the Madras firm had number been included.
In his return which he filed before the Income tax Officer at Calcutta he specifically disclosed his share in the income of the Madras firm.
The assessee wrote a letter saying that he had fully disclosed the details of his income from all sources in his original return and numberhing had escaped assessment.
The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was allowed on the ground that the Income tax Officer had numberadditional information either externally or internally which came Into his possession subsequent to the making of the assessment to justify the action taken under Section 34 1 b .
The Revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal which reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1955 56.
On March 22, 1960 the Income tax Officer issued a numberice under Section 34 1 b of the Income tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the profits from the Madras Arm which had escaped assessment should number be included in the income.
The profit allocation report of the share of profit from the Madras firm had been received in the office of the Income tax Officer In September 1955 and an order was recorded on the order sheet of the proceedings to that effect.
Originally it has been brought by certificate but the same had to be revoked i.e. in C. A. 1685 of 1968 as numberreasons had been given in the order granting the certificate.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in an Income tax Reference.
In fact he had indicated that he had a share in the profits of the Madras firm and was also entitled to interest on the capital invested therein.
The Income tax Officer failed to include in the total income the share of profit from the Madras firm.
The assessee was H. K. Shah who is number dead and is represented by the present respondents.
H. K. Shah deceased, hereinafter referred to as the assessee.
