Skip to content


Haripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMatter No. 678 of 1978
Judge
Reported in[1981]128ITR592(Cal)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147
AppellantHaripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateKalyan Ray and ;R.N. Datta, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateAjit Sengupta and ;S. Mukherjee, Advs.
Excerpt:
- .....filed by the assessee by following the said judgment of this court and has also rejected the application filed by the assessee under section 256(1) of the act. 4. we do not agree with the tribunal that the question has become purely academic, but at the same time we discharge the rule by following the judgment of the supreme court in the case of cit v. lakhiram ramdas : [1962]44itr726(sc) , for the assessee has not challenged, by raising an appropriate question, the basic finding of the tribunal that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the accounting year in question. 5. it may now be noted here that reliance was placed before us on the cases of ito v. lakhmani mewal das : [1976]103itr437(sc) and ito v. madnani.....
Judgment:

Deb, J.

1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.The asscssee has framed the following question in his petition :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) was legal and valid ?'

2. The aforesaid question was decided against the assessee in an earlier proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by following the said judgment of this court and has also rejected the application filed by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Act.

4. We do not agree with the Tribunal that the question has become purely academic, but at the same time we discharge the rule by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas : [1962]44ITR726(SC) , for the assessee has not challenged, by raising an appropriate question, the basic finding of the Tribunal that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the accounting year in question.

5. It may now be noted here that reliance was placed before us on the cases of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das : [1976]103ITR437(SC) and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. : [1979]118ITR1(SC) , on behalf of the assessee. The aforesaid cases were, however, decided on different facts and in our opinion they have no application to the facts and the circumstances of the instant case before us.

6. There will be no order as to costs.

R.N. Pyne, J.

7. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //