The assessee is not required to disclose facts which are already known to the ITO.

( 1 ) IN these two writ applications the petitioner, Messrs. Grindlays Bank Ltd. challenged certain notices issued under Section 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). In Civil Rule No. 15774 (w) of 1975, the petitioner has challenged notices under Section 148 of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1958-59, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.

( 2 ) IN Civil Rule No. 8747 (w) of 1976, the petitioner has challenged notices under Section 148 of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66.

( 3 ) AS almost identical questions of fact and law arise in both these civil rules by consent of parties, the two rules were heard together and one set of arguments were advanced in both.

( 4 ) ALTHOUGH the reasons recorded by the ITO justifying the reopening of the assessment for the above-mentioned years were not set out either in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the revenue or in any of the annexures thereto, they were produced before me from the records at the time of the hearing. By consent of parties, copies of all the recorded reasons for the aforementioned years have been kept in the records of these cases.

( 5 ) IN respect of the assessment years 1958-59 to 1966-67, one of the reasons recorded by the ITO for initiating the proceedings is common. The reason is that the contribution by the petitioner to the Grindlays Superannuation Fund has been claimed as an admissible expenditure and the same has been wrongly allowed from year to year in the computation of the total income of the petitioner.

( 6 ) MR. B. L. Pal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue, submitted that for all the aforementioned years, namely, 1958-59 to 1966-67, there were two non-disclosures by the assessee in respect of the above years. First, the assessee did not disclose that the contribution to the Grindlays Superannuation Fund was debited to the Indian profit and loss account of the petitioner. Secondly, no evidence was produced at the time of the original assessment that the said Grindlays Superannuation Fund was a recognised one.

( 7 ) THESE two alleged non-disclosures by the assessee in respect of the above years may now be examined in some detail.

( 8 ) DR. Debi Prosad Pal appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that in respect of at least two assessment years, namely, 1958-59 and 1966-67, in respect of which the reasons recorded by one H. P. Roy, an ITO, on the 5th March, 1975, does not mention that the assessee did not disclose that the expenditure debited to the Indian profit and loss account included contribution to Grindlays Superannuation. Fund.

( 9 ) ON the other hand, the recorded reasons for the year 1958-59, inter alia, state that "such contributions were being made regularly in earlier years and had been claimed and debited to the Indian profit and loss account". Dr. Pal, for the assessee, tries to explain the discrepancy between the recorded reasons for the years 1958-59 and 1966-67 and those for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66 which were recorded by the same officer on the 24th February, 1976, with regard to this item of nondisclosures. According to Dr. Pal this can be explained only by the events which happened between the earlier recorded reasons for the above two years on 5th March, 1975, and the latter recorded reasons for 1959-60 to 1965-66 which were made on 24th February, 1976, being taken into account.

( 10 ) IT is pointed out that the petitioner moved the writ application against the notices for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1966-67 to 1970-71 on the 27th August, 1975. In the petition, the petitioner categorically stated in para, 12 (b) and paras. 12 (d) and (f) that at the time of the original assessment for the relevant assessment years the petitioner had produced all the relevant facts relating to the contribution to the Grindlays