MULJIMAL N RAGHUVANSHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and proper interpretation of section 147 of the Income -tax Act, was the Tribunal justified in law in upholding the reopening of the assessment ?'

(2.) THE facts of the case are as under :

(3.) THE only grievance of the assessee in this reference is that the assessment for the assessment year 1959 -60 could not have been reopened by the Income -tax Officer on the basis of the information received by him from the assessment under the Wealth -tax Act for the assessment year 1960 -61. We find that this controversy now stands concluded against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO : [1996]221ITR538(SC) . In that case also, the Income -tax Officer having found the claim of the assessee of hundi loans to be bogus in his assessment for the assessment year 1960 -61, issued a notice to the assessee under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1959 -60. The issuance of notice was challenged on the ground that the assessment for the assessment year 1959 -60 could not have been reopened on the basis of information discovered in the subsequent assessment year. Repelling the above contention, it was held by the Supreme Court (at page 548) : 'Now, what needs to be emphasised is that the obligation on the assessee to disclose the material facts - or what are called, primary facts is not a mere disclosure but a disclosure which is full and true. A false disclosure is not a true disclosure. The disclosure must not only be true but must be full - 'fully and truly'. A false assertion, or statement, of material fact, therefore, attracts the jurisdiction of the Income -tax Officer under section 34/147.'