COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX Vs. MATHEW N J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN fact, the proceedings of IT Ref. Nos. 2 and 3 were before us in pursuance of the common order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench. However, in view of the statutory provision that the initial notice created a bar of limitation in regard to consideration of the provisions of S. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act, 1958, yesterday we decided IT Ref. No. 2/1990 along with IT Ref. No. 4/1990, in view of the situation that the submission with regard to resort to S. 16(1)(b) being out of time, no other result would follow.

(2.) THE present two references, though relating to identical question under reference, enabled the learned senior tax counsel to urge before us the possibility of resort to S. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act, 1958. The question in these two references is as follows :

(3.) IT is on the basis of this specified situation reinforced by the two fact finding appellate authorities, the Department of Revenue had approached this Court for answer to the question reproduced at the out set. The question is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment on the basis that the assessee could not be understood to have failed to disclose fully and truly the material particulars necessary for completing the assessment.