Case: Central Provinces Manganese Ore. Co. Ltd Vs. I.T.O Nagpur

section 147 of the Act were not given. However, along with the return filed on behalf of the Revenue before the High Court, the reasons which led to the issue of notice under section 148 on the grounds mentioned under section 147(a) of the Act were disclosed. It is not disputed that the reasons need not be set out in the notice and the same can be produced before the court Section 147 of the Act provides for assessment or reassessment in cases where income has escaped assessment. The Revenues right to take action under the section is subject to the conditions laid down therein. The requisite conditions provided under section 147(a) at the relevant time were as under The Income-tax Officer should have reasons to believe that income has "escaped assessment" by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee -(i) to make a return of his income under the relevant provisions of the Act; or (ii) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the year Section 147(b) of the Act, on the other hand, required that the Income-tax Officer should have, in consequence of information in his possession, reason to believe that income has "escaped assessment" It is not disputed that, in the year 1970, the Income-tax Officer had o jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 on the grounds contained under section 147(b) of the Act as the period of limitation for the issue of such notice provided under the Act had expired. There was. However, no bar at that point of time to issue the said notice on the grounds under section 147 (a) of the Act Mr. K Rajgopal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Income-tax Officer could not have reason to believe that there was omission or failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, according to him it was not the practice with the appellant to produce the account books from their head office in London before the Income-tax Officer. The appellant-company produced before the Income-tax Officer the balance-sheets, profit and loss accounts and all other necessary records required for the purpose of assessment. According to learned counsel. The only material before the Income-tax Officer was the original order of the Collector of Customs wherein it was held that he appellant had indulged in under-invoicing, resulting in declaring lesser price than the prevailing market price. Learned counsel contended that the order Collector could, at the most, be information within the ambit of section 147(b) of the Act but it could not be the basis or the reason to entertain the belief as required under section 147(a) of the ActThe only question with arises for our consideration is as to whether the two conditions required to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer under section 147(a) of the Act have been satisfied in this case. The first is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that the income chargeable to income-tax had been under- assessed and the second that such under-assessment has occurred by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year 1953-54 So far as the first condition is concerned. The Income-tax Officer, in his recorded reasons, has relied upon the fact as found by the Customs Authorities that the Appellant had under-invoiced the goods it exported. It is no doubt correct that the said finding may not be binding upon the income-tax authorities but it can be a valid reason to believe that the chargeable income has been under-assessed. The final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. What is relevant is the existence of reasons to make the Income-tax Officer believe that there has been under-assessment of the assessees income for a particular year. We are satisfied that the first condition to invoke the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 147(a) of the Act was satisfiedAs regards the second condition, the appellant did not produce the books of account kept by them at their head office in London nor the original contracts of sale which were entitled into at London with the buyers. The appellant did not produce before the Income-tax Officer any of the accounts which related to the foreign buyers, No reasons were given for the supply of manganese ore at a rate lower than the market rate. It is for the assessee to disclose all the primary facts before the Income-tax Officer to enable him to account for the true income of the assessee. The proven charge of under-invoicing per se satisfies the second condition. The appellants assessable income has to be determined on the basis of the price received by it for the goods exported. If the true price has not been disclosed and there was under-invoicing, the logical conclusion prima facie is that there has been failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts before the Income-tax Officer. We are, therefore, satisfied that both the conditions required to attract the provisions of section 147(a) have been complied with in this caseMr. K Rajgopal further argued that, in fact, the notice was issued under section 147(b) of the Act and under section 147(a) of the Act. We are unable to accept this contention. Although the notice only mentioned section 147 of the Act without indicating whether it was under section 147(a) or section 147(b), the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer on February 26, 1970, which run into more than 20 pages specifically state that the proposed action was under section 147(a) of the Act. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that the material on the record and the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer justify the issue of the notice under section 147(a) of the Act

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]So far as the first condition is concerned. The Income-tax Officer, in his recorded reasons, has relied upon the fact as found by the Customs Authorities that the Appellant had under-invoiced the goods it exported. It is no doubt correct that the said finding may not be binding upon the income-tax authorities but it can be a valid reason to believe that the chargeable income has been under-assessed. The final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. What is relevant is the existence of reasons to make the Income-tax Officer believe that there has been under-assessment of the assessees income for a particular year. We are satisfied that the first condition to invoke the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 147(a) of the Act was satisfiedAs regards the second condition, the appellant did not produce the books of account kept by them at their head office in London nor the original contracts of sale which were entitled into at London with the buyers. The appellant did not produce before the Income-tax Officer any of the accounts which related to the foreign buyers, No reasons were given for the supply of manganese ore at a rate lower than the market rate. It is for the assessee to disclose all the primary facts before the Income-tax Officer to enable him to account for the true income of the assessee. The proven charge of under-invoicing per se satisfies the second condition. The appellants assessable income has to be determined on the basis of the price received by it for the goods exported. If the true price has not been disclosed and there was under-invoicing, the logical conclusion prima facie is that there has been failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts before the Income-tax Officer. We are, therefore, satisfied that both the conditions required to attract the provisions of section 147(a) have been complied with in this caseMr. K Rajgopal further argued that, in fact, the notice was issued under section 147(b) of the Act and under section 147(a) of the Act. We are unable to accept this contention. Although the notice only mentioned section 147 of the Act without indicating whether it was under section 147(a) or section 147(b), the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer on February 26, 1970, which run into more than 20 pages specifically state that the proposed action was under section 147(a) of the Act. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that the material on the record and the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer justify the issue of the notice under section 147(a) of the Act