Niranjan & Co. P. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal-I & Others

fataa woe saat (sto) fafaes (Aaa[)] aaa ATTRA, TARY TaTA-] we we (19 ata, 1986) (sqrayia AIto Flo WSF att aenatet geet) - aramz afatara, 1961 (1961 st 43) —atet 147—faaten—arge faateor az gafaare—afa faatfcat wt ota at aradt ate gave aedl HY get aes a ale areafaeeq ase wae ste ata at aaTaat gee A frerizerafraret & ova ag farsara HTA HT TTT & fe ant gatear arian aeat St qa ate THE ST AT fretifeett wt az &gi fect aaweat at ata & Bret arg ata fratce &vez, at aeqe Frater ag fat & frat at anat B| fagifedt/adtarat% TaFaTe, 1962 4 fagizot 4 1962-63.& dae F waar faacolt ore ay AT, feat aia am F eteax 2,092 arg et ara feark at 1 fagifedt/adrarat & aargarefeacot dare SUH aadt ge at, sath afeaain daa a Sayegi ara 10,718.46 erg FT ATA faacolt F feata & te TAT aTfieg aftarettga farce F area GATT wie aw aeqifa war at sft Hee ay dtpara ate gift te 9 afaatteedgar arearafea featwat aT) ATURS aferarey327 warez,1963 at faaizer featatt fagivtares2 afanin dad 8 MY are gat A, Fe faaicr wx &fata ¥ frat vat art carts Prgifedt /atraret & aatfera faacongreat et, faad cat afeaatr and & aa ae aye ST 42,092.00 STU FT AAC ATH fzarat, faaet FA ANT 12,797 Begrat ar) ee ade Fag TT TTT cad agearga & fF fadifedt/aritatat % 29 axeat, 1962 wt fawcety GET at at 1 ag fanra 8aqraett argent% sreege a ate srfeteteT TTR ere sa IT Fered AMAT TAT aT | RAH TaTAT ATE 2 area, 1963 areata.faa aah arta 3 feaaz, 1963 at grea g2 ftga frat27 qaray, 1963 Bt fear qatar) gulfina Prazont ¥ fraffeat/aritarét § 2,092.00 ere at argizr ara ale afernion dad &aia & eq FH, freer ger ate 12,797.65 qq Bar at, fea@rar arymem faa & arare ae faker seq az feq otqearaMase afreI + aa afafray, 196) at ART 147 F arateFrater se at gear ard atag aarar war @ fe ea qaar&aret faew STA BT arate ag at fe umfar faacot argae afizardyFama oe aay alge adt ot, gale fate HT HT wT a fxgWaT aT, farg ag are % yak ora sa WaT sar, wale 3 fearaz,1963 #t sae oa st aafar fear qa | GIT Tet gt az fret‘Sasfett sraae afaardt at afaetfeat a wala &t ge fran Ie SIR ara a ett at feet % sax afr ®Marae 226 aha arreq weqa far gar orefema ade afi“sree at fat, fad ade 30 asa, 1970 atl aaa: HUTA EATHxfear war | aitaret/fastfedt & sar ssa eqraraa a ararest attr at) fate & gana-caeell Br Ta A Teyaetal ar fadat wt & are at frathedt/adterat at az & teat re et, aoz eqs] ada afta wz al alt qaar at araqTart sae eafet gaz faatfcal/arcteret % fata esnaa THTSOTA ator Tarde wt, frat fafafeae ack xr FET Yet ag“arf aar azghca frat oz Gafaare wwe ar ale ararz g |atte afer Be ge,Ot. ° - afafretfica—tafiz 3 at feaf %, ag afearc aaeqayCater ay fate dae at feata ape &, ae fretted ataz & at aad ate gana sea} at qd ate & ae areata egRoe eH BE ate at wawaar ge & alt araez afar &ae afew ore wet & qe Bet erat arava att afer frat ag-feagqaa er 8 ag favara Fee BT aS fisge gaa at arkasseet at Te aE a sae TH fratfeat at alte & ak fretTHAT IT ATT RIT aa, Fratton & tg 1$ 3 | ATTRT we‘fray, 1961 at are 147 % ave (@) & ata caer -afawrd, aeqay owt fr oraz afiperet Bora argfea fate ¥ ac fat & fareHU ST RAT s, age fe ga are F a ge vt fH frac TETT“HUT Fat awl aeal Bt qu awe ate areafaa wa a ome Ht Ffratfeat at ate & arg ate ar aaear val gf eh, araee afBretata say frater & quar sah gra at oraerey ®rattanaforrmened & we ag ag favara %1 (Te Hey 16) er ater8 fae HTH far carat are NIRANJAN & CO, P. LTD. COltllSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL-I & OTHERS !IARCH 19, J986. [R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ,] Income tax Act, 1961, s. 147 - Assessment - Reopening of - When permissible. Assessee -Filing revised return voluntarily after making of first assessment - Income Tax Officer ·- Whether can reopen assessment. The appellant-assessee filed its return along with a copy of the Balance-Sheet and profit and loss account in November, 1962 showing an income of Rs.2,092 ea its profit. According to the appellant , a Ill.stake had occurred in the preparation of the return, inaamich aa the profit of Rs. 10,718,46 arising from construction works had been left out from the return. However, in the Profit & Loss Account, the profit from construction work was indicated. The Income--tax-Officer made an aaaesament on 27th November, 1963 after taking into account ~he profit from the construction work also. On 3rd December', 1963 the appellant-assessee again filed a revised return showing a general profit of Rs, 2.092 ea also profit fr0a the construction work aggregating Rs.12, 797.65. But; no copy of Balance-Sheet or Profit & t.oss Account was annexed with the revised return. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the appellant under section 147 of the Inc011e-Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the revised return was not before the Income-T"" Officer when the assessment Order waa originally made but cue to her possession later on. The appellant challenged before the High Court the jurisdiction of the Income-tax-Officer to i11ue the notice. The Single Judge dislllissed the application and the Division Bench confirmed the ~rder of the Single Judge in appeal pref erred by the appellant. In appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant-asaessee that there waa no question of any escapement of income or under-assessment of income, because the profit from construction work which was the item · alleged to have been left out from the first return and included in the revised return was already taken into consideration by the Income Tax Officer in making the first assessment order. Dismissing the appeal, Jll!U) : l(i) Under s. 147(a) of the Act, a completed asseasment can only be reopened either if there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return or to disclose fully and truly all material and relevant facts and the Income-tax Officer 1111st have in his posseasion before he issues notice s0111e material from which he can reasonsbly form a belief that there has been some eacapement of income due to SOiie failure or omission on the part of the asseasee to dis-close fully all relevant or material facts. The second right under clause(b) of section 147 of the Act, under which the Income-tax Officer has to reopen a completed assessment is that notwithstanding that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee either to make a return or to dis-close fully and truly all material facts, the Income-tax Officer in consequence of information in his posseasion subse-quent to the first assessment has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax' has escaped asseasment. [923 A-<:] 1. 2 It is true that even after the expiry of the time to make return, if an assessee files a return before the assessment is made, then the Inc0111e-tax Officer is bound to take cognizance of that return and cannot ignore that return. If a second return is there to the notice of the Incomo-tax Officer then it cannot be said that there was an eai:apement of income due to omission or failure of the asseasee to disclose fully and truly all material and relevant 'facts based on the facts mentioned in the second return. But after the completion of an assessment, the assessee is not entitled to take benefit of another return filed by him, nor is Income-tax Officer obliged or entitled to take that return into consideration except by the process of re-opening the assessment. [923 I>-F] aeqay faaitaaa ara t fraifed A emer: ag ware od fis gan“aa gfefeat feat war, seqa c&zor& was autfirr faa fafa faacoty ana} area at aaa} ot aoad, afe fretfedt frateor fer ort & gd feat age azar& Wa aaRt afeard va fea ar daa wafac arag2ait ag va faacolt ay stderr at atwar | afe sau faacot ara-“ST aaa F cara F 8, at ag adler or ewer fH cad feat# sfeafat seat ® areca arena avt afan att ganacreat at gd ate a ale areafan wT a sae Het H fratfedd aate & gu ate ar aamaat & ae ara (Fratton ww a) we ae“Ht fag fratwor & qe a oa & are, fraffedt eax gre areaal 7 gat faazolt ar raat BA sr gware asl ¥ ale a At ataet afer feat gt aq fata faa wetfaa, gafaacot at fame Fae He fan ater ds, ara gl saat gHnearz@ t (zr 17): agatea facia [1969][1969] 72 ato do ato 197:TAATT TAA AH alae, ANE;|17{1968][1968] 67 age dle aryo 11: argo dto ato 630: HATA TATA Gao TAT VfEaTT;AIART, TRUM TAT go THT TT ag ada saat sea MaTaa at aos aaTatls F are91 ag, 1971 ara faota att arte & fees fate eos. THT HT 7a oI- 2, egadia % ag qufefar amcor. aa ge fie Fat aeghea frateor ot gafaare Her F fg FTE sTUTT | fag ag wego fafar qfefeafaal ¥ serer gate |wafer fratet 4% 1962-63-g 1 fraifedt/artiendf t warez, 1962 % arqat faacoit Bree adt, feat act ara & TH sar 2,092 VIG at ana faarg dt. fraifed ataret & aargare fart sare awa A aed Bs at;-aaife afaato dad a saya gly atat 10,718.46 eae AT ATH‘faacoft F feart & we var ary fag ar sala atat & fie acdtaraytqa faacolt & area gaa-oa ate art ate gift star ay sf“Brg AY at) arr ate atts tart aferain aad a gat ayeqafaa fear maraty arnt afaartt3 27 aaraz, 1963 at—-Frafcor Pear ate faatzo arta & tar sata gar 2 fe aferatorand & at art gat at, ag Prater wza A feara F fear wat artaaa fratfedl ada? & dalfaa farce atga at, fret saa-afaaion aaa & Dat ata ara F ST A 2,092.00 eae Fr ATTome fara, faraar ga att 12,797 erg stat ar| 3. ga dag Fag art TAT TaRt ageaga g fH frathet-ataret29 tara, 1962 HY faazoly wget at at| ag faataarent agarrt sea’ ge at ake miftacaed area wT F va IzRereq ATTAT Talat) yah earar tar wate gare fe, tear fagesiaa % fearar nar 2, ade 2 area, 1963 avait detfag fra-goft arte 3 fareaz, 1963 et sea ge at1 gar frerizor 27 waERT,4963 at feat Tat aT|| 4, aatfca fracoitF frathedt /attaret % 2,092.00 erg aTere are ate afearatn dadX ara F wT H, feast ga alt12,797.65 eae atarat, fearat ari saa faacoit & ararz aefrat area at fee wae aaa arzHt aferard Farazafafraa, 1961 (fae gat gat cearq “afafraa” wer aar eg) atOT 147% aela Prato HA Hl GAAT ATL FT| As TATA Tar2 fe ga gaat & ard fee ora ar arene ag a fe aatfaa faa-oh arate afaard & aaa sa aaa alas ag et safe Fratercarte qa eg & feat aar ar, fag ag ae FT gas oa wa aaomar wafs 3feaeaz, 1963 at sae ora oe aaa fear qargear seat gta oe faethe F araae erferaret ay afirarfcar wyaqatdl aa ge fear) sat ae saat aataTa a ett ay feafe Feae afaart & aqege 226 F seta araea gega fear gar wrefrscanee afore at frat, fae ata 30 ate, 1970 great:sarTaegat BT fear Tar|a 5. atharet/fratfedt * gar sea eararaa at que carats. aie sy | sy | |- HAN aie sy | sy | | 6. are earads F sa aAH aetal ar fadaa fear, aR ec-tsaiooer of ~Tu, Bombay City II v. lanchhoc!des KaraondAul, 36 I.T.R. 569, r.c-lssioner of In• ta, lladra v. S. llawh C...ttiar, 55 I.T,R. 630 and H [1986] l S,C.R. • Balcban4 V• 1--Ta Officer, Sagar, 72 I,T,R. 197 referred to. ro-tuioaer of 1--Tax, Gujarat v. A. 1lwn & eo •• 67 I.T.R. 11, Co-!Hioner of~. ~ v. !lessen, Kahaliraa lla;jidu, 8 I,T.R. 442 relied upon. In the instant case, there was information in the form of a revised return and since informations mentioned before came to the knowledge of the Income Tax Officer subsequent to the making of the first assessment and information being such from which a reasonable person could have formed the belief that there was escapement of illCOlll! or under assessment of income, it cannot be said that there was no jurisdiction of the 1nC090 Tax Officer to reopen the assessment. Whether in the reassessment to be made pursuant to the notice issued, the income assessed would be more by Re. l or less than the inCOlle already assessed is not material or relevant for the question of jurisdiction to issue the notice under s. 147 of the Act, (925 l>-F] (2) Filing of voluntary return which came to the knowledge and possession of the Income-tax Officer will not be any bar for the lncolle-tax Officer to issue notice for reopening of the assessment, if the other conditions are fulfilled. (923 G-11] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 967 of 1972. From the Judgment and Order dated 21st May, 1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Appeal No, 201 of 1970. V,S, Desai, Ma. Arona Jain and Ashok Mathur for the Appellant. C.M. Lodha and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACllI MDKllAllJI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order 21st May, 1971 of the division bench of the Calcutta High Court. This appeal raises the familiar problem whether there are grounds for reopening a completed assessment but that question arises under rather peculiar circumstances. The assessment year concerned is 1962-63. The asses see/ appellant had filed its return in November, 1962 showing an income of Rs.2,092 as its profit. According to the assessee/appellant, a mistake had occurred in the preparation of the return, inas111Uch as the profit of Rs. 10,718.46 arising from construction works had been left out from the return. But it appears that along with the original return, a copy of the Balance-sheet and ?rofit and Loss Account was filed by the appellant. In the Profit and Loss Account, the profit from construction work was indi-cated. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment on 27th November, 1963 and it appears from the assessment order that the profit from the construction work was taken into account in making the assessment. The assessee/appellant, however, filed a revised return showing a general profit of Rs.2,092 as also profit from the construction work aggregating Rs.12, 797. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that the return was filed by the assessee/appellant on 29th November, 1962. This was received in the receiving section of the Department and a stamp had been duly put thereon in token of the receipt. It further appears that a revised return dated 2nd August, 1963 was received, as shown in the endorsement, on 3rd December, 1963. The original assessment was made on 27th November, 1963. Sas THe er at ae ef 1 arzHe afgard, stadt agra %, Prayfretzo frat at, mqq-74 & tar oda ela & fix faacott 29 warez,1962 atares at 7g oftfaacot & 4.422 eau at arzarz arfatt 6,519 eq at arate are afee at ne atfearg we gea7 2,095.26 erg atsar aaHT afeard Fag waa Pear fi:BET 9 THAT, 1963 BY sae gre safer st aE ot ate fraifedySl Higa Hr dente att aren fafafteat aan wre agiaaa ieee gata wat araet afeardt Fag afaaea fratat TF fr.3 fearaz, 1963 at sat “" are} argaz afqardy & fretfeayare Se afaarel F ane Great at we faroll gree at dy, fratye feat F arewr H afar 2,096.26 eae & faqda12,797.65 are at ara fearé 1E ot |oe fr7, Bah waa Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: Bah waa Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: waa Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: afaard F qe vt waa fT: F qe vt waa fT: qe vt waa fT: vt waa fT: waa fT: fT: ay 1962-63 & fac st faateofisat gar ar, ag 30 aaraz,1963 #t qu gt mar aT | Frater at ana gah are 29 qarac.1962 ateit faazoft gt et, frat 2,096.26 age at ara fare weat | 3 faaraz, 1963 at aatg Frater qa ay & are gd 2” as:w araae afeard & ag feacolt sear ek, faa 12,797.65 eae at:ate fearg ag oY ger gad aetfae facet are ate aife FearTAT Fats H ArT Ta Aait Ts 18.| 7, Bah waa Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: Bah waa Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: waa Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: Stat saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: saat afaard F qe vt waa fT: afaard F qe vt waa fT: F qe vt waa fT: qe vt waa fT: vt waa fT: waa fT: fT: 8.| fafa & gana soaet ar ger sa sea acital ar frdaa: aw & are ol fratfedt/adiaret at ate & tn at as oi, aveearads & adie afer ae dt ate gaat st BraA TET | 9. eafaa star fratfedt/acthened? % fade earaa Fae ga: a & amet ailet BT 1 rararea 10. fafa # st feafe @, gaat fader ect} oF cede Maeve OA are areafaw feat a care H waar aravaw go | GYLL. frrerifeet/arctterrelf at atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% frrerifeet/arctterrelf at atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% at atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% & gare amet ga ata gt 4% gare amet ga ata gt 4% amet ga ata gt 4% ga ata gt 4% ata gt 4% gt 4% 4% atx fear var, + fe sea eqrataa at aos carats & anette LL. frrerifeet/arctterrelf at atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% frrerifeet/arctterrelf at atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% at atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% atte & gare amet ga ata gt 4% & gare amet ga ata gt 4% gare amet ga ata gt 4% amet ga ata gt 4% ga ata gt 4% ata gt 4% gt 4% 4% ad:| gee saat go maT araeA [ato qast] = 4535p fataet Se feat aat ar, fie ge aaa F ary B Se TT BT aTawafratir ar alg at seat adl &, aalfs raat afieerdt 9 aferaior.TRHee ata al ae tat ae ar, fast area qe aferfear mat ot fis ag gafae feat % fare ate 2 tz TE Tt ateGaia faa HF mfr we at as ot, gaa Prater ade weeaeway st area ag ae F faare ararat HS afeardt frat ar & antga sa ee ava oe Hat ate fear oh, dar mar fe fir:ag aa att gift Fars mfr st we dh, fag areaa ¥ gaaSTART arse T ae Hrd ae faare F frat ary eh area:afaaret 4 fafafece wan at, frat are 147 % acta qaar ardHUA HT oat Tart feat at, Frater wd aaa frart FF fear:at, afag ga ara ot ate fear war fe ag adt wer aT aH fix:mre aT we we at ar feet ara wr waftate fear mar a| In the revised return, the assessee/appellant had shown a general profit of Rs. 2, 092 as also the prof! t from the construction work aggregating to Rs.12, 797. 65. After having made the assessment order on the basis of the first return, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinsfter called the 'Act'). It is stated that the ground for issue of this notice was that the revised return was not before the Income-tax Officer when the assessment order was originally made but came to her possession later on when it was forwarded to her on 3rd December, 1963. On receipt of the notice, the assessee wrote challenging the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction and thereafter not being satisfied moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi which was ultimately discharged by order dated 30th April, 1970, The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the division bench of the said High Court. The division bench discussed several contentions urged before it. It appears from the affidavit of the Income-tax Officer who made the assessment, Mrs. Mahajan, that the return was filed on 29th November, 1962. The return showed a business loss of Rs. 4,422 and dividend income of Rs. 6,519. The total income shown was Rs.2,095.26. The said Income-tax Officer stated that the file was transferred to her on 9th October, 1963 and the file number and other particulars were duly intimated to the assessee. It was further stated by the said Income-tax Officer that on 3rd December, 1963, she had received from the Income-tax Officer, 'E' Ward a return filed before that officer by the assessee showing an income of Rs, 12,797.65 against Rs. 2,096.26 shown as income in the original return. The said Income-tax Officer has further stated that the assessment for the year 1962-63 was completed on 30th November, 1963, At the time of making the assessment, she had before her only the return dated 29th November, 1962 showing an income of Rs, 2, 096. 26. On 3rd December, 1963 i.e. to say after completing the assessment she had received from the Income-tax Officer, 'E' Ward a return. showing an income of Rs.12,797.65. The second or the revised return, however, was not accompanied by the Prof it and Loss Account and the Balance-sheet. After discussing the relevant provisions of law and other submissions urged on behalf of the assessee/ appellant the division bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the notice. Being aggrieved, the asses see/ appellant has come up in appeal before this Court by special leave .. Before the position in law is discussed, it is necessary to bear in mind the factual position emerging from the documents. faced12, afaaa at fagra wets ate qos eats F qe faarat % fe sam frat Hea aaa aaNet afraret ® aaya Fae fraifedl ar qgaa-ca gar ara ate erfa ar Fear a, fratFanta day 8 garam eee er &® fearar war at, afea capTraizy wee & ag ara ease § fe ate ar ara at ag fafnse qa-saa frat swe ana fare #8 at ae dt) aa: ag ray areafafran at are 147% aha gafrare ea wr aye dt arene:met gt aaeat dt aarfa, tor sla star & fin aaitficg frat F-at etal & ga arar are att ara at ataa ae Her Tate fag12,797.65 aay %1 3a GaAa-aa FsAfe germ faacoh H geaa feat:maT at, afaain aay 8 gla aay ara F wT FH 10,718.46 waewatat qatarfaatfeat &. margaret aaa-ca F fears we 18.07erg wt gift ga wae FS art oral at ate ge gare afe are at‘Mat, TT ATA10,700.39 eae aratsafe say faazolt ¥ safe:¥,096.26 eIg ST ATH 10,700.39sae at tHe A Me fear araT;.@Y Ht THA 12,796.65 wa ard | aa: ae ease 8 fe saa facNT CAAT H ara ge cafe Ha aT He sty 12,796.65 Baw:atat at, atte aatfaa faawt F safer ara ate ara & dae1 eqat HA ST 12,797.65 aT[ze][ 1]CO. 13. ge ararar, ster fis goa sqratam at que raradts ® $32 geaae earatem favrg afer [1986] 3 BA Fito qo facia & ease 8, qa Peace F areare ate afer & ett areit4,422.89 wag ae a arf fear we ft At aa aa a ala aratATH 6,519.15 TIT AT ate EAT HITT J 2,096.26 WIT HT YS ATW“gar ar, a aude at ferg dalfea faacolt fraifedt/adterettAawreary AT aft SF BIA are 7,461.42 VAT HT AM fe@rat atait ary Mat F 5,336.23 ee Br arm fearar qatar ale HUET‘aia 12,797.65 eau fearg ae AY) aa, Tar sata Vat & fae BTeaca aa Mate aa Fes gee fan ay ales YA-TTaay are ate etfs Fara F safer aivst & arava a sear vatfer aa 8) Tar sate Par & fe adarst atas. galfat farce Fgare fae me AIM aT ara aT gars H safer ara att ara“frat Hy gt aferNF sl THAT HA sy sar gree ahead‘feu aT aaa Fae ease & fe vas are Gree fag TT TaA-TT‘at san fart Hoafer atast ar fear amar fracot Fgafsa anal s ara acaar & are adl fear ar amar. ar altquarter & ag favata wetFH BLY HT ATETT Med atat & ffSTH far gard ara fasten aTEA: 14. au fat & fears wet A ag ara afafraa TY ae 14 Bata dy are 147% ata aa fat a faare Het at ateargfa Frater & are Sam ae at or andl ge safe arseafgant 3 ora que (#) 3% ala ag aera FTA aT BITTE fHfraifeal at ae & faazolh sega Hwa at av gana seal wT Teawe tar aeafan wee see HAH ge als aT ge aAGAAT >amy StH fa vag ara va ay } fav faaizn & wg 1G F aKque (4)% ala ga ara & ga ge wt fH fratfedt at ae aare Me ar aanaar wel ge Ht, afe araHe afte F ata, Cas‘qva at staal & ofcoraeqed, ag favata Haar arco & faegaat ® far sara arafagtzor & we 78 3, aa ae afara Vataa ® diaFX qfedtar BR sadet F alr F fe vega aay FBaa AT BWA Saat aferarfar HY ATT Tet gar| 15. gaan y gaara Hear at afearfcar faareretaSisaadfia F gar dag ga ata & agl gfe aot sled et a Y Yn | Facaa WoeGIA To TANT aTINT [Fate Tee] | 533 feu ae Prater B mare: re Peat at geaaT ATT TT FR aaaHIG aT wat 16. fafer Ho feafr %, Fe afer Sarge fratea aC fata kaa adt fear at ata zg afe fagifedY at az & av-araat att garg geal FY TA ATE F az areatan Ba & THE FARae ae ar aanaat Fe J atc AAT afentt) % aa alfesara wea & gd tay areal aaa att atfga frat ae gfeagaa“eq & ag fasara ara FT ae PR set gard aT atae deat atgh ag Boe FTA faaifedy at ae a gé feat wana ATAlaarea ara, fate 8 we 7g Si afefrae Ht are 147 &-gog (@) * afta au ahaa, ay fe avant afarTT—gegfea fraten F aq fat a faare aA Ht Fat &, 7s & fFga aia B ga ge wt fe Peace sega FTA Hoar awl azat aaa ag ale areafas BT OF THE wat fraifedt at ate aare alg ar aanaat ag Bs aT, AAHT afasrtt F we TTAfaaicr ® wad sas wa st arate F TLTTATIST AZfagare BU Bt TTT S fe ST FH faq sas aia fagitr & Se 17, ea arae # fraifeat a eases: ag TIAA B TT FF TTA On behalf of the assessee/appellant, it was urged before us as it was urged before the division bench of the High Court that there was in this case no question of any escapement of income or under-assessment of income because the profit from construction work which was the item alleged to have been left out from the first return and included in the revised return was in fact taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer in making the first assessment order. It was argued that this item of profit was not only before the Income-tax Officer as it was included in the Profit and Loss Account but in fact it was taken into consideration by the said Income-tax Officer in making the order. The specific amount which provided the ground for the issue of the notice under section 147 having been taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer while making the assessment, it was urged that it could not be said that there was any escapement of income, or under assessment of Income. The division bench after analysing the record has come to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer while making the first assessment had before her not only the Balance Sheet and the Prof it and Loss Account of the assessee in which profit on construction work was clearly shown but it was evident from the asessment order itself that this particular item of profit or income was taken into consideration in making the first assessment. Therefore, this by itself could not be any ground for reopening under section 147 of the Act. It, however, appeared that in the revised return, the profit or income from all sources have been stated to be Rs.12,797.65. In the Balance-sheet which was submitted in the first return, the profit from construction work was shown at Rs.10,718.46 • According to the assessee, a loss of Rs.18,07 shown in the balance-sheet had to be deducted from the said amount and if so deducted, the profit came to Rs.10, 700.39. If the profit disclosed in the first return of Rs.2,096.26 was added to the amount of Rs.10,700.39, the total amount came to Rs.12,796.65. It is apparent therefore that the total profit and income calculated on the basis of the first return and the balance-sheet came to Rs.12, 796.65 and that is less by Re. l only from the profit and income disclosed in the revised income which is Rs.12,797.65. Apart from this as is apparent from the judgment of the division bench of the High Court that in the original return, a loss from business and profession to the extent of Rs.4422.89 was shown and there was a profit from another source to the extent of Rs.6,519.15 and therefore there was a net profit of Rs.2,096,26 which was taxable. But in the revised return, the assessee/ appellant had shown profit from business and profession to the extent of Rs.7,461.42 and also profits from other sources to the extent of Rs.5,336.23 and the taxable income was shown at Rs.12, 797 .65. It appears therefore that the figures disclosed as profit from business and other sources could not be readily obtained from the figures disclosed in the balance sheet and the prof it and loss account. It appears that the present figures could be obtained by a process of back calculation with a view to reconcile the profit or income disclosed in the revised return with those disclosed in the balance-,,heet. It is clear that the figures disclosed in the first return of the balance-sheet filed with it could not readily be reconciled with the profits disclosed in the revised return and the later provided grounds for reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. faatem feat mar 2, casera autfat faacolt Ise Al Al 1 Aeag 2 fe faazont sega awa & fac fafeaa aaa F AAA e AVA~afe fagifedy fratzo faq art & gt faacoy Breet FLAT e, 74grant afera ga faacoll at dart ata & faa alas & at Agga faacolt at star adh we erat | ate gat Fraconl ATAHe afa-ama ® ea Hz, at ae Tel HRT HT ATA fas gael faazott qgfeafaa aeat ® arate ot atenfer aa atfaw