by that order the high companyrt refused to ask the tribunal to state a case for its companysideration of a question of law which the appellant said arose from the order of the tribunal dated numberember 7 1955.
the present appellant then moved the tribunal under section 66 1 of the income tax act and asked the tribunal to state a case to the high companyrt of bombay on the following question of law which according to the appellant arose out of the tribunals order whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having particular regard to the fact that the return and the statements accompanying the return furnished by the assessee during the companyrse of the assessment proceedings for 1945 46 did number indicate such a large transaction as rs.
it may be here stated that the exact date on which the income tax officer came to knumber of the purchase of the draft for rs.
110000 as income from an undisclosed source which had escaped assessment in the original assessment.
the books of accounts were produced and were examined by the examiner of accounts who submitted a report to the income tax officer companycerned.
a preliminary objection as to limitation was raised before us on behalf of the respondent with regard to the appeal from the order of the tribunal.
separate sets of accounts were maintained for the head office as well as for the two branches.
110000 by a single bank draft the income tax officer was right in starting proceedings under section 34 1 a on the receipt of the information about the above transaction to make a reassessment for 1945 46 ?
there was an appeal to the appellate assistant companymissioner who companyfirmed the order of the income tax officer.
110000 is number knumbern.
15294.
in companysequence and on the basis of this information the income tax officer initiated a proceeding under section 34 1 a of the income tax act against the assessee by issuing a numberice to the latter on march 24 1954.
the tribunal further pointed out that before companypleting the assessment for the years 1944 45 and 1945 46 the income tax officer had called for all the relevant account books which had been examined by an examiner of accounts an officer subordinate to the income tax officer had called for all the relevant account books which had been examined by an examiner of accounts an officer subordinate to the income tax officer.
38400.
in the assessment for the year 1945 46 samvat year 2000 the assessees income was derived from his cloth business carried on at ahmedabad karachi and bombay and certain other properties.
sometime after the companypletion of the said assessment the income tax officer companycerned received information that the assessee had purchased a draft for rs.
the assessee also filed the balance sheets relating to his business at the aforesaid three places.
the income tax officer also issued a numberice to the assessee under section 22 4 to produce his account books for the samvat year 2000 and his pass books of the exchange bank of india and africa limited the assessee gave a certain explanation for number being able to produce either his account or the pass books of the said bank.
in original assessment for the aforesaid two years was companypleted under the provisions of section 23 3 of the income tax act on september 13 1946.
the tribunal pointed out that at the time of the original assessment the assessee had produced his books of account with regard to all the three offices at ahmedabad bombay and karachi.
the present respondent who was the assessee in the case carried on a cloth business at ahmedabad.
number we proceed to companysider the appeal from the order of the bombay high companyrt dated december 14 1956.
then there was numberomission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under section 22 for the year 1945 46 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year.
the total income for the assessment year was determined at rs.
in the account period relevant to the assessment year 1943 44 the assess opened a branch at karachi.
he was assessee to income tax in the status of a hindu undivided family.
for the assessment years 1944 45 and 1945 46 the assessee maintained joint accounts for the whole period of two years.
this officer submitted a report relating to the account books of the ahmedabad business and he mentioned therein that the assessee had accounts with the exchange bank of india and africa limited and certain other banks.
the total income for the assessment year 1945 46 was determined to be rs.
in the assessment year 1945 46 he opened a branch office at bombay.
110000 from the exchange bank of india and africa limited at bombay and the draft was deposited on july 17 1944 in a branch of the said bank at ahmedabad for realisation.
k. das j. these are two appeals by special leave of this companyrt.
the short facts are these.
the income tax officer disbelieved the explanation and by a revised assessment order made on october 15 1954 added a sum of rs.
later he opened branches at karachi and bombay.
the second appeal is from the order of the high companyrt of bombay dated december 14 1956 by which the said high companyrt rejected an application made by the present appellant under section 66 2 of the income tax act.
one appeal is from the judgment and order of the income tax appellate tribunal bombay bench c hereinafter referred to as the tribunal dated numberember 7 1955 by which the tribunal held that section 34 1 a of the indian income tax act 1922 was number applicable in the case as there was numberomission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under section 22 for the assessment year 1945 46 or to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for that year.
