Haryana Acrylic a decision favourable to department

[brett_lee38]

In the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs CIT Reported in 308 ITR 38 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under
"what is to be seen is whether the petitioner failed to make a full and true disclosure of all the material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year 1998-99. Explanation I to Section 147 also makes it clear that mere production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could, with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer, will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the said proviso. This explanation, however, does not mean that production of account books and other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not "in any event" amount to disclosure within the meaning of the said proviso. The said explanation only stipulates that such evidence will not necessarily "amount to disclosure" within the meaning of the said proviso. However, we need not labour on this aspect any further inasmuch as we find that in this case, the Assessing Officer had made specific queries, inter alia, with regard to the share application money of Rs.5 lakhs received from Hallmark Healthcare Limited"
From the above passage it is clear that if the AO had not ask a specfic question in the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) then the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 after four years is sustainble the only thing which should be taken care that a mere allegation of failure to disclose primary fact is enough. This is my understanding of the judgment therefore it can be said that in view of the provisions of explaination1 to section 147 this decision is favourable to deapartment.
Prakash Chand Yadav
09891142308