Under the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax act, 1961, Income Tax Officer can reopen the case to tax the income that escaped taxation. The essential prerequisite of this re-opening is that Assessee should have omitted to disclose some primary facts.

However, in case where no facts were concealed from Assessing Officer, and certain crucial facts were omitted by him due to oversight, he has no right to reopen the assessment. Though there are many judgments supporting this stand, a recent decision of High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Commissioner of income-tax, Jaipur vs Manohar Lal Gupta, vindicates this fact again.

The facts of the case were that Customs authorities had seized precious stones of about Rs. 3,48,116 from Assessee. After valuation of said goods, same were delivered to Assessing Officer under section 132a(2).

Assessing Officer passed provisional order of assessment under section 132(5) assessing undisclosed income at Rs.  3,48,116 and raising tax liability. Thereafter, Assessee filed return for assessment year 1980-81 showing total income at Rs. 9,610. Assessing Officer completed assessment accepting returned income.

Here, it may be noted that Assessing Officer was in possession of the required information of seizure by customs however, he failed to link the required information. Lateron as the Assessing Officer was woken from his slumber, he issued notice under section 147/148 on ground that Assessee failed to disclose information in respect of goods seized by customs authorities and, accordingly, included value of said goods in assesssee’s income.

The question before the courts was whether, in view of facts, it could be said that Assessing Officer at time of passing original assessment order, had in his possession all primary facts necessary for framing assessment and, therefore, it was a case of oversight by Assessing Officer and not that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

The court ruled in favor of Assessee holding the argument that it was oversight of assessing officer and not omission of information.