N. SUNDARESWARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred in these references is the same: whether,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the re -assessment proceedings under section 147(a)were valid," The assessee is the same in both the cases;and the first reference relates to assessment year 1958 -59 and the second reference to assessment year 1959 -60.The Income -tax Officer reopened the assessment for the respective years under section 147(a)of the Indian Income -tax Act of 1961 on the ground that he had reason to believe that,by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the assessment in the respective years,income chargeable to tax had escaped asessment,since certain deductions were wrongly given towards payment of interest on borrowed,moneys;and the question for us to consider is whether such reopening was valid in the light of the facts and circumstances.

(2.) THE relevant portion of section 147(a)pro­vides that,if the Income -tax Officer has reason to believe that,by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for any assessment year,income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year,he may assessor re -assess such income,etc.There are three aspects to be considered in cases like these;and they are all considered by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co.Ltd. v.Income -tax Officer,Companies District I ,Calcutta 41 I.T.R.191 which was a case under the corresponding section 34(1 )(a)of the Income -tax Act of 1922.

(3.) WE do not think we need refer to other sub sequent decisions of the Supreme Court on this question,because the later decisions have not laid down anything new or different from the principles set out above.( For instance,see S.Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income -lax,Bangalore ;63 I.T.R.219 and Kantamani Venkita Narayana and Sons v. First Additional Income -tax Officer,Rajahmundry, 63 I.T.R.638. Now we shall consider the facts and circums­tances of the cases before us;and we shall take up first I.T.R.No.4 of 1968.