SHARMA AND SIDDHANTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee in this reference is a partnership firm run under the name and style of Sharma and Siddhanta. The assessment of the firm for the year 1962 -63 was reopened. The reopening order was assailed in appeal before the AAC. The AAC allowed the appeal. He held : "There was thus no omission on the part of the appellant to disclose material facts originally in its assessments. The later information which came into the possession of the ITO regarding confessions of the hundiwallas entitled him to action under S. 147(b) and not under S. 147(a). The order of the AAC was reversed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Lakhmini Mewal Das vs. ITO (1972) 84 ITR 649 (Cal) and confirmed the order of the ITO and reversed the order in appeal and held :

(2.) THE Tribunal accepted the decision of the AAC. The Tribunal referred the following questions under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The question is :

(3.) THE AAC considered the facts and circumstances of the case properly and applied the ratio of the decision of this Court reported in Seth Kirorimal Adwani vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 789 (Assam & NL). Therefore, we do not see any vice in the decision of the AAC.