SACHDEVA S D Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question of law has been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench

(2.) THE assessee is an individual. THE assessment year is 1954-55. THE previous year ended on 31st March, 1954. THE assessee was assessed on 31st March, 1959, under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on a total income of Rs. 99,475, which included Rs. 48,802 as income from other sources. This assessment was not accepted by the assessee and ultimately his total income was determined at Rs. 14,597.

(3.) IF the assessee had disclosed to the Income-tax Officer the surplus price realised by it over and above the written down value of the assets sold or in the alternative if it had informed the Income-tax Officer the price realised as well as the written down value of the assets sold, then it could have been said that the assessee had done its duty and it was for the Income-tax Officer to draw any inference on the facts placed before him. But, the failure of the assessee to disclose to the Income-tax Officer the fact that the price realised by it by sale of its assets was more than the written down value of those assets or at least the written down value of those assets amounts, in our opinion, to a failure on its part to disclose fully and truly the material fats necessary for its assessment. From the cryptic statement of the Income-tax Officer in the original assessment order that no adjustment is necessary the Tribunal was not justified in drawing the inference that the Income-tax Officer had considered all the relevant facts.