AJIT K.SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) IN this reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1961 -62 the following question of law has been referred to this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the ITO was not justified in initiating the proceedings under s. 147(a)/148 of the IT Act, 1961, and in that view setting aside the orders of the ITO ?'
(2.) SHORTLY stated the facts are that the assessee is a registered firm. The ITO made the assessment for the asst. yr. 1961 -62, in due course. Subsequently the said assessment was reopened under s. 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that certain hundi loans were not genuine. After having heard the assessee, the ITO made the reassessment and included therein Rs. 1,85,000 as income of the assessee from 'undisclosed sources' and Rs. 15,132 being interest thereon. On appeal, the ITOs action was confirmed by the learned AAC. Thereafter, the assessee came up in second appeal before the Tribunal when there was a difference between the Members constituting the Bench. The Accountant Member was of the opinion that the case was covered by an earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 2nd December, 1978 in ITA No. 4277 (Cal) of 1976 -77 relating to the assessees case for the asst. yr. 1960 -61 wherein the orders of the authorities below were set aside. The Judicial Member was of the opinion that the reopening of the proceedings under s. 147 in respect of loans said to have been advanced to M/s. Daluram Guganmal was in order. Accordingly, the following two points of difference were referred to Third Member who in this case was the President : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the initiation of proceedings under s. 147(a) of the IT Act is justified ? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether addition on account of hundi loan appearing in the name of M/s. Daluram Guganmal is justified even though the creditor admitted to have advanced the loan to the assessee ?' The Third Member agreed with the Accountant Member and came to the conclusion that the present case was covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal. In accordance with the opinion of the learned Third Member the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee and allowed.
(3.) THE only question which arises for consideration is whether there was any material before the ITO to form the belief that by reason of omission of failure on the part of the assessee the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons which have been recorded by the ITO for reopening the assessment are as follows : 'During the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1965 -66, I have occasion to investigate unsecured loans which stood at Rs. 10,27,348 at the close of the accounting year relevant for the said year in the books of the firm. It was noticed that a large number of them were bogus hundi or Khattapata loans or loans from the next of the kith and kin of the partners, genuineness whereof could not be proved by the concern. Hence, the amount credited to some of these accounts will be assessed as income from undisclosed source for a consideration amount. Similar loans are noticed for the asst. yr. 1961 -62 and these stood at Rs. 4,36,582 as per balance sheet ending 2017 R.N.';