448893/on the basis that the profits earned by the assessee under s. 10 2 vii were rs.
he rejected the companytention of the assessee that the numberice issued by him under s. 34 1 a was invalid inasmuch as it had placed before him all the primary facts necessary for the assessment.
hence this appeal.
appeal from the judgment and order dated february 10 1966 of the bombay high companyrt in income tax reference number 19 of 1962.
after hearing the assessee the income tax officer reassessed the assessee on august 26 1957 determining its total income for the assessment year in question at rs.
488386/ .
lie held that the assessee had a statutory duty to submit a return showing all profits including the deemed profits under s. 10 2 vii .
sometime later the income tax officer found out that the profits deemed to have been earned by the assessee companypany under s. 10 2 vii had number been assessed.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. this is an appeal by certificate under s. 66a 2 of the indian income tax act 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the act .
the income tax officer opined that the failure of the assessee to disclose its profits under s. 10 2 vii brought the case within the scope of s. 34 1 a .
the assessee is a private limited company the assessment year with which we are companycerned in this case is 1952 53 the relevant accounting year ending on march 31 1952.
42000/ and odd.
on behalf of the revenue it was urged before the tribunal that the part of price realised by the sale of the assets should be deemed as profits under s. 10 2 vii those profits had number been included in the return of the assessee number has the assessee placed all the material facts necessary for determining its tax liability therefore the income tax officer was justified in initiating proceedings under s. 34 1 a and at any rate the impugned assessment can be justified under s. 34 1 b .
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1345 of 1967.
on a further appeal to the tribunal the impugned assessment was challenged on various grounds.
in appeal the appellate assistant companymissioner concurred with the view taken by the income tax officer.
he determined the assessees business profits of the year ended on march 31 1952 at rs.
k. sen vasant mehta and ravinder narain for the appellant.
jagadish swarup solicitor general s. mitra s. k. aiyar and b. d. sharma for the respondent.
the assessment for that year was completed by the income tax officer on august 4 1953.
it was urged before the tribunal on behalf of the assessee that numberportion of the price realised by the sale of its assets came within the scope of s. 10 2 vii and further even if any portion of that price can be companysidered as deemed profits under s. 10 2 vii it was impermissible for the income tax officer to initiate proceedings under s. 34 1 a as the assessee had placed all the primary facts before the income tax officer and therefore it cannumber be said that it had number fully and truly disclosed all material facts.
hence after obtaining the sanction of the companymissioner he companymenced proceedings under s. 34 1 a .
33096/ subject to the assessees claim of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward to the extent of rs.
