SUNDARESWARAN N Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred in these references is the same :

(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 pa& 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 assess or reassess 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, [1961] 411.T.R. 191; 11961] 2 S.C.R. 241 (S.C.) 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 subsequent 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-tax, 1967 63 ITR 219 ; [1967] 1 S.C.R. 590 (S.C.) and Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Rajahmundry, [1967] 63 I.T.R. 638; [1967] 1 S.C.R. 984 (S.C.).