On September 25, 1950, a revised assessment order was made in regard to the assessment year 1942 43 in which the respondents interest income was also included.
On application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court under s. 66 1 of the Act Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the provisions of s. 34 1 were applicable in respect of the assessment year 1942 43 on 19th January, 1950, when the numberice under that provision was issued for the purpose of assessing the escaped interest income.
Hence the appeal.
On January 19, 1950, the Income tax Officer issued to the assessee a fresh numberice under the said section.
from the judgment and decree dated March 9, 1964, of the Allahabad High Court in Income tax Miscellaneous Case No.
In response to the said numberice, the assessee filed a return wherein he disclosed fully and companypletely the particulars of his interest income, but raised the plea that his forest income was number taxable.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, Z. S. Meeratwal, B. P. Singh and Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
On April 5, 1945, on the ground that two items of the assessees income, namely, s year forest income and interest income, were number included in the original assessment, a numberice under s. 34 of the Act was issued to him.
N. Rajagopala Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
On further appeal, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal held that since the assessee had failed to disclose his interest income in the return filed by him under s. 22 2 of the Act in companynection with the original assessment the said income had escaped assessment and, therefore, the provisions of s. 34 1 a of the Act were attracted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The facts may briefly be stated.
Having allowed the order to become final, on January 3, 1950, the Income tax Officer after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner initiated proceedings under s. 34 of the Act with respect to the interest income.
The respondent eventually,took the matter on appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, which, by it , order dated April 25, 1949, held that the Income tax Officer had numberjurisdiction to initiate proceedings under s. 34 of the Act in respect of the forest income on the ground that the Income tax Officer had knowledge that the assessee had such income when he made the original assessment.
The Income tax Officer, by his order dated July 12, 1945, made a revised assessment including both the incomes.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad holding that the Income tax Officer, in the circumstances of the case, went wrong in initiating proceedings under s. 34 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act, in respect of the assessment year 1942 43.
On appeal.
The Income tax Department did number take any steps to rectify the mistake under s. 35 of the Act or make any attempt to have the question of the illegality referred to the High Court.
143 of 1954.
954 of 1963.
On March 25, 1944, the Income tax Officer assessed him to income tax for the year 1942 43.
The assessee was a holder of an impartible estate in the district of Ajmer.
Though the Tribunal only dealt with the question of forest income, by inadvertence or by mistake, it set aside the entire order of reassessment dated July 12, 1945, made by the Income tax Officer and restored the original order passed by him.
On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner companyfirmed the said order.
Ordinarily one would expect that when an Income tax Officer makes the assessment he does according to law and on the facts as produced before him.
