the income appearing by way of deposits in the sarpat business could be assessed only as income from some undisclosed source and the previous year for income from undisposed source for which the assessee had number elected any previous year would be the financial year.
a fresh numberice under s. 34 was issued in october 1951.
the total income of the assessee was companyputed at rs.
the assessee filed appeals against the assessment order dated october 16 1952 companytending inter alia that there had been numberescapement of any income and that in any case the first revised assessment dated october 16 1952 was barred by time under s. 34 1 b of the act as the provisions of s. 34 1 a did number apply.
71731.
40000 was included as income from undisclosed sources.
in this amount a sum of rs.
the tribunal called for a report on certain other matters with which we are number companycerned and which were disposed of by subsequent order dated august 31 1958.
on a petition filed under s. 66 1 of the act the tribunal referred the following question to the high companyrt for decision whether.
117817.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated january 2 1964 of the allahabad high companyrt in i.t.
663 and 664 of 1966.
thereafter the assessee filed two appeals before the income tax appellate tribunal.
in the revised assessment order the total income of the assessee was companyputed at rs.
reference number 244 of 1959.
that appeal was also dismissed.
on march 18 1954 a revised assessment was made in which was included a sum of rs.
to the government the investment having been made between december 8 1943 and february 17 1944.
on march 31 1953 the income tax officer served on the assessee anumberher numberice under s. 34 in respect of the same assessment year 1944 45.
this order was revised under s. 34 of the indian income tax act 1922 hereinafter called the act.
the second revised assessment was challenged on the ground inter alia that the income tax officer had no jurisdiction to issue the numberice under s. 34 as the material facts necessary for making the assessment were fully and truly disclosed to the income tax officer during the assessment proceedings for the year 1945 46.
on october 16 1952 a revised assessment order was passed and the total income of the assessee was companyputed at rs.
goyal for the appellant in both the appeals .
as regards the first revised assessment the tribunal held that the income of the assessee from the firm rajnarain durga prasad had escaped assessment by failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the facts necessary for making the assessment and that the provisions of s. 34 1 a were attracted and therefore the period of limitation was eight years and number four years.
the income from undisclosed source which came to be included in this companyputation amounted to rs.
the second revised assessment was challenged on the ground that the income tax officer had numberjurisdiction to issue a numberice and make assessment under s. 34.
81696.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
before the tribunal it was companytended by the assessee that the first revised assessment dated october 16 1952 was barred by limitation and that the period of limitation was four years under s. 34 1 b and number eight years under s. 34 1 a .
on february 20 1945 the income tax officer made an assessment on a total income of rs.
p. nayar for the respondent in both the appeals .
85817 which included a sum of rs.
it was argued that the investment expenditure and the profits earned from the business of sarpat and bamboo had been duly shown.
with regard to the second revised assessment it was urged that all the materials necessary for making the assessment were before the income tax officer and by issuing a numberice under s. 34 the income tax officer had changed his opinion and a mere change of opinion did number authorise the income tax officer to take recourse to s. 34.
49696 as income from undisclosed sources.
the investments were made in the financial year relevant for the assessment year 1944 45 and were number made in the financial year relevant for the assessment year 1945 46.
26800 odd which companyprised income from the share in the business of kasi iron foundry and the income from the property.
the assessment order of march 18 1954 was challenged before the high companyrt on the ground that there was numberdefault on the part of the assessee attracting applicability of s. 34 1 a .
the income tax officer had therefore numberchoice but to resort to section 34 of the act.
narsaraju t. a. ramachandran and 8.
32000 as the assessees income from undisclosed sources being the alleged investment of the assessee in the satpat and bamboo.
c. manchanda and j.p.
the relevant assessment year is 1944 45 corresponding to the accounting year ending on diwala samvat 2000 october 28 1943 .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by grover j. in these appeals by special leave the facts may be stated the assessee at the material time was a hindu undivided family.
this assessment was challenged before the appellate tribunal and was set aside on the ground that there had number been proper service of a numberice under s. 34.
business prior to february 18 1944.
