Haripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal-Xi

Deb, J.:— This is an application under 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 under section 147(a) was legal and valid?”

2. The aforesaid question was decided against the assessee in an earlier proceeding under art. 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 s. 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad v. Lakhiramdas, [1962] 44 ITR 726, 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] 103 ITR 437 (SC) and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., [1979] 118 ITR 1 (SC), on behalf of the assessee.

6. 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.

7. There will be no order as to costs.

R.N Pyne, J.:— I agree.