The appellant thereafter filed writ petition in the High Court on April 29, 1966.
4,60,372.
All material facts, it was stated, regard ing the acquisition of various capital assets from time to time were on the record of the department.
37,869 and Rs.
For the assessment year 1959 60 the appellant like wise filed return.
The appellant was called upon to furnish returns in the prescribed form within 30 days from the date of the service of the numberices.
The appellant in reply stated that depre ciation calculation sheets had been worked by the income tax authorities and there was numberfailure on the part of the appellant to disclose all facts.
2,39,723 had been allowed as deprecia tion allowance in excess of the permissible limit.
The fact that initial depreciation on the new assets had been allowed was also on the record of the department.
Assessment order in respect of that year was made on March 30, 1961 and the income of the appel lant was assessed at Rs.
3,57,926.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 31st March, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
In companyputing the said income the Income tax Officer allowed depreciations amounting to Rs.
The petition was resisted by the respondent and the affidavit of Shri N.M. Baxi, Income tax Officer was filed in opposition to the petition.
On Febru ary 2, 1966 the Income tax Officer addressed another letter to the appellant stating that for the assessment years 1957 58 and 1959 60 the income of the appellant had escaped assessment for failure of the appellant to disclose all material facts within the meaning of section 147 a of the Act of 1961.
5,05,487.
As a result of the mistake, it was stated, a sum of Rs.
According to the case of the appellant, there was numberomission or failure on its part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
1792 of 1971.
The appellant companypany was asked if it had any objection to the rectification of the mistake, the above letter was followed by another letter wherein the respondent wrote to the appellant that the mistake in depriciation arose because the initial depriciation was number taken into account in finding out whether the total depreciation allowed exceeded the original companyt.
If there was any oversight on the part of the Income tax Officer, the appel lant, it was claimed, companyld number be held responsible for that.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Enclosed with the letter was a chart showing excess depreciation allegedly allowed during the above mentioned period.
26,945 respectively.
In respect of the assessment year 1957 58, the companyre sponding accounting year for which ended on July 31, 1966, the appellant filed its return under the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1922 .
The Income tax Officer accordingly stated that he proposed to recompute and reas sess the income loss depreciation allowance for the aforesaid years.
545/66.
11,04,650 after allowing depreciation of Rs.
On October 5, 1965 a letter was addressed on behalf of the respondent to the appellant stating that there had been a mistake in the calculation of the depreciation allowance in respect of certain items of the capital assets of the appellant for the period companyered by the assessment years 1955 56 to 1962 63.
The excess amounts of depreciation for the years 1957 58 and 1959 60 were mentioned in the chart to be Rs.
The predecessor in interest of the responded by assessment order dated April 16, 1959 assessed the total income of the appel lant at Rs.
The impugned numberices were thereafter issued on March 4, 1966 by the Incometax Officer to the appellant stating that he had reason to believe that income of the appellant chargeable to tax for the assessment years in question had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act of 1961.
The matter relates to the assessment years 1957 58 and 1959 60.
H. Dhebar, S.K. Dholakia and A.C. Bhatia for the appel lant.
The appellant is a public limited companypany which carries on the business of manufacture of pottery and sani tary wares at Morvi and other places in the State of Guja rat.
M. Mehta and Girish Chandra, for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal on certificate is against the judgment of Gujarat High Court dismissing petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appel lant for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash two numberices issued by the respondent to the appellant under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961 .
