KHEM SINGH SANKHLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice Annexures 11 and 12 issued under the IT Act, 1961.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that assessment for the year 1984-85 and 1985- 86 were not reopened merely because of non-disclosure of FDR and receiving of a car but also due to fact that petitioner has spent money in the marriage of his daughter which he had not disclosed earlier. The petitioner also spent his undisclosed income in meeting out his household expenses as well as in constructing the house and there were further more reasons. These expenditure are not disclosed when petitioner's income was assessed and during search these facts came to knowledge of the Department.