Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) These appeals are by certificate from the decision of the High Court of Bombay dated 21st June, 1973 whereby the High Court had declined the application made under Sec. 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') wherein the assessee sought two questions to be referred to the High Court. The questions were:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the re-assessment proceedings under Sec. 147(a) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, initiated by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1962-63 against the assessee were valid in law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the action under Sec. 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1962-63
(2.) The real question, therefore, is whether there were facts from which it could be believed that there was failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment as a result of which income has escaped assessment. The assessment was sought to be re-opened for the years 1955-56 to 1962-63 (for failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts). It is wellsettled that the obligation of the assessee is to disclose only primary facts and not inferential facts - See Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, 41 ITR 191. There must be, therefore, (a) full disclosure, and (b) true disclosure of all material facts. What facts are material for a particular case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, (c) there must be escapement of tax or under-assessment due to such failure or omission.
(3.) In this case the reason for the belief of the Income-tax Officer was that the assessee had obtained depreciation at 6 per cent on the assets which were masonry works but the assets really consisted of earth work wholly or substantially. If that was the position then the assessee was not entitled to depreciation as was granted. The question, is, whether the assess had disclosed the nature of the masonry work and whether the nature of the asset had been fully and truly disclosed.;