Haripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Deb, J.—This is an application u/s 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has framed the following question in his petition :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment u/s 147(a) was legal and valid ?"

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

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 u/s 256(1) of the Act.

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 Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay North Vs. Lakhiram Ramdas, , 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.

It may now be noted here that reliance was placed before us on the cases of Income tax Officer, Calcutta and Others Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, and Income Tax Officer and Others Vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., Calcutta, , 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.

There will be no order as to costs.

R.N. Pyne, J.

I agree.