The Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted only in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.

( 1 ) BURMAH-SHELL Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company or the petitioner) has presented this writ petition challenging the validity of two notices one bearing No. CC-XXIII/5-b/67-68/79, dated the 17th August, 1971, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XXIII, Calcutta, and the other bearing No. 1426/iac/icfp-124/67-68, dated the 18th August, 1971, issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1 (C), Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the English Companies Acts with liability of its members limited by shares and has its registered office at Burmah House, Piper Sway, Swindon, in the United Kingdom. The petitioner carries on business, inter alia, at Burmah Shell House, Ballard St. , Bombay-1, and also at No. 31, Binoy Badal Dinesh Bag, in the town of Calcutta. The business of the company consists in the importation and of purchase and storage, sale and distribution of petroleum and allied products. The capital of the company has been contributed in pounds sterling and as on 31st December, 1966, the authorised capital of the company consisted of 2,50,00,000, divided into 1,25,00,000 " A " ordinary shares of pound one each and 1,25,00,000 " B " ordinary shares of pound one each. All the shares of the company have been issued and are fully paid up. The accounts of the company are expressed in terms of pounds sterling including the profit and loss account of the company. The company is obliged by law to lay before its shareholders at its annual general meeting a profit and loss account expressed in terms of pounds sterling. The financial year of the company is from January to December. The company has been assessed to income-tax in India for a number of years. For the assessment year 1967-68, the company duly filed its return and the assessment year in question in the present proceeding is the assessment year 1967-68. On the 5th of June, 1966, the rupee was devalued. As a result of the devaluation of the rupee the petitioner in respect of its trading for the financial year 1966, claims to have suffered a loss in consequence of the fall in the sterling value of its current assets held in India including oil stocks. It appears that the petitioner has further provided in respect of depreciation an amount based on its original actual cost in terms of sterling of its capital assets, which by reason of the said devaluation was greater in terms of rupees than it would othewise have been, and the petitioner claimed in his income-tax return for the assessment year 1967-68, depreciation on the enhanced basis on account of the devaluation. The petitioner also claimed development rebate and terminal or balancing charge in respect of assets discarded or sold on the basis of their original actual cost in sterling. Assessment year 1967-68 was the first year in which these questions fell to be considered and the petitioner had in its return for the said year claimed deduction for the loss on devaluation and the said greater depreciation on its fixed assets and also the said development rebate. The return of the petitioner for the assessment year 1967-68 was duly filed and sent with a covering letter and in the said letter and also in the return, the petitioner specifically pointed out that it was claiming devaluation loss and the said greater depreciation. In course of the assessment proceedings on the basis of the said return filed by your petitioner for the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer made several queries and asked for several clarifications all of which were duly furnished by the petitioner. In course of the said proceedings, the petitioner also filed a revised return under cover of a letter dated 20th May, 1971. In the said revised return, the petitioner again made it clear that it had claimed devaluation loss and the said greater depreciation as well as development rebate and