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

The relevant facts are stated hereinafter, the appellant is a non- resident company having its office in London. It has its office in India at Nagpur. The appellant is assessed to income-tax at Nagpur and it has been the practice of the appellant-company to produce before the Income-tax Officer the relevant books which are kept by the local office at Nagpur, the balance-sheets. The trading account and the profit/loss account form their head office in London. It appears that, some time in 1958, the customs authorities came to know that the appellant-company had declared very low prices in respect of all the consignments of manganese ore exported by them out of India. It was also found that the most of the export was only to three buyers who in turn did not purchase manganese ore from any other company except the appellant. After due enquiries/investigation, the customs authorities found that the appellant was systematically showing lesser value for the manganese ore exported a compared with the prevailing market price for the same grade of manganese oreThe Collector, Customs, Visakhapatnam, by an order dated March 2, 1959, held that there was under-invoicing by the appellant to the tune of Rs.78 lakhs. The said order of the Collector was. However, set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded to the Collector for rehearing. In the final order passed by the Collector of Customs dated November 16, 1972, under-invoicing invoicing was shown to the tune of about Rs. 44/45 lakhs. It is thus obvious that the customs authorities came to the conclusion that the prices mentioned in the relevant contracts between the appellant and the buyers were lesser than the contemporaneous market prices. The customs authorities, thus, found as a fact that the appellant-company was indulging in under-invoicingThe Income-tax Officer, on coming to know about the pendency of proceedings before the Collector of Customs, issued a notice dated March 20, 1970, under section 148 of the Act. In the notice, the reasons on the basis of which he entertained the necessary belief as required under 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

Court's reasoning:
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