Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 550 1973 SLD 550 (1973) 87 ITR 618
Calcutta High Court
MATTER No. 389 OF 1969, JANUARY 20, 1971
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J
Dr. D. Pal and R. Dutt for the Petitioner. B. Bachawat and A. Sengupta for the
Respondent

Bengal Luxmi Cotton Mills Ltd.

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for - Assessment year 1960-61 - Assessee claimed depreciation on machineries which was granted - Subsequently ITO found that said machineries did not exist - Whether a particular machinery was there or not, whether petitioner had brought into use any machinery in a particular year was a primary fact in facts and circumstances of instant case and if that fact had not been disclosed that would be non-disclosure of primary facts - Held, yes - Whether on facts ITO rightly believed that there had been some non-disclosure and, therefore, justified in issuing notice under section 148 - Held, yes FACTS The ITO issued notice on the ground that in the original assessment, the assessee-company claimed depreciation allowance on the written down value of machineries which was granted but on the basis of information the ITO had reason to believe that these machineries did not exist at all, that as such the assessee was not entitled to the above depreciation allowance which the company had claimed and was allowed in the assessment and that the income of the assessee had accordingly escaped assessment due to its failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. The assessee filed petition challenging the notice issued. On writ : HELD Whether the grounds were adequate or not for arriving at the conclusion was not for the High Court to investigate at this stage. In the face of the grounds indicated, it would be unreasonable and improper to hold that there was no reasonable ground at all for thinking that there had been some non-disclosure. Whether a particular machinery was there or not, whether the petitioner had brought into use any machinery in a particular year was a primary fact in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. If that fact had not been disclosed that would be non-disclosure of primary fact. Merely because a particular fact has to be established by evidence does not automatically make it an inferential fact. The existence or non-existence of a primary fact may be required to be proved by evidence. Anything that requires to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492