The duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts, it does not extend beyond this.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. (For himself, S. K. Das and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.) : This appeal is against an appellate decision of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court by which in reversal of the order made by the Trial Judge the Bench rejected the present appellant s application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Company s Act and has its registered office in Calcutta. It was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years, 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45 by three separate orders dated January 26, 1944, February 12, 1944 and February 15, 1945, respectively. These assessments were made under S. 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act upon returns filed by it accompanied by statements of account. The first two assessments were made by Mr. L. D. Rozario the then Income-tax Officer and the last one by Mr. K. D. Banerjee. The taxes assessed were duly paid up. On March 28, 1951, three notices purporting to be under S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were issued by the Income-tax Officer calling upon the company to submit fresh returns of its total income and the total world income assessable for the three accounting years relating to the three assessment years, 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45. The appellant company furnished returns in compliance with the notices but on September 18, 1951, applied to the High Court of Calcutta for issue under Art. 226 of the Constitution of appropriate writs or orders directing the Income-tax Officer not to proceed to assess it on the basis of these notices. The first ground on which this prayer was based was mentioned in the petition in these terms : - "The said pretended notice was issued without the existence of the necessary conditions precedent which confers jurisdiction under S. 34 aforementioned, whether before or after the amendment in 1948". The other ground urged was that the amendment to S. 34 of the Income-tax Act in 1948 was not retrospective and that the assessment for the years 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45 became barred long before March, 1951.

2. The Trial Judge held that the first ground was not made out but being of opinion that the amending Act of 1948 was not retrospective, he held that the notices issued were without jurisdiction. Accordingly he made an order prohibiting the Income-tax Officer from continuing the assessment proceedings on the basis of the impugned notices.

3. The learned Judges who heard the appeal agreed with the Trial Judge that the first ground had not been made out. They held however that in consequence of the amendment of S. 34 in 1948 the objection on the ground of limitation must also fail. A point of constitutional law which appears to have been raised before the appeal court was also rejected. The appeal was allowed and the company s application under Art. 226 was dismissed with costs.

4. The Company has preferred the present appeal on the strength of a certificate issued by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.

5. The only point raised before us is that the court below were wrong in holding that the first ground that the notices were issued without the existence of the necessary conditions precedent which confers jurisdiction under S. 34 had not been made out. As it is no longer disputed that S. 34 as amended in 1948 applies to the present case we have to consider the section as it stood after the amendment in 1948, in deciding this question of jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the section was in these words :

"34. Income escaping assessment - (1) if -

(a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under S. 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for that year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have be