| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 364 1970 SLD 364 (1970) 75 ITR 157 |
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No. 734 OF 1968, dated February 12, 1969
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
S.C. Manchanda, R.H. Dhebar, R.N. Sachthey and B.D. Sharma for the Appellant. Sukumar Mitra and P.K. Chatterjee for the
Respondent.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 734 OF 1968, dated February 12, 1969
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
S.C. Manchanda, R.H. Dhebar, R.N. Sachthey and B.D. Sharma for the Appellant. Sukumar Mitra and P.K. Chatterjee for the
Respondent.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Kamal Singh Rampuria
Law:
Section:
Section 147, read with section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 34, read with section 66, of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income escaping assessment - Position prior to 1-4-1989 - Assessment year 1945-46 - Assessee being a minor at relevant time, his father disclosed, in return, only minor's share income from a firm but not minor's income by way of interest derived from another firm in which certain sum bequeathed to him by his mother was invested - Thus, share income alone was assessed in assessee's hands while interest was shown in his father's return - Later, High Court in a reference for an earlier assessment year, held that interest could not be assessed in father's hands - ITO accordingly made reassessment under section 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act by including interest income in assessee's hands - Tribunal held that assessee's father had not discharged his duty as minor's guardian to include interest income in assessee's return, and that provisions of section 34(1)(a) applied - High Court, on reference, held that assessment made under section 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act was not justified in absence of evidence to support Tribunal's finding that ITO had reason to believe that there was omission on assessee's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts - Whether in absence of a question whether Tribunal's finding was based on no evidence or that it was perverse, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in examining for itself materials in support of Tribunal's finding and acting as a court of appeal - Held, yes - Whether High Court was, thus, in error in reappraising evidence before Tribunal and in interfering with its finding - Held, yes - Whether, consequently, assessment made under section 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act was to be regarded as justified in law - Held, yes FACTS The father of the assessee, who was a minor at the relevant time, had, in the return, for the assessment year 1945-46, disclosed only the minor's share income from a firm but not the income by way of interest derived from another firm in which certain sum bequeathed to him by his mother was invested. Thus, the share income alone was assessed in the assessee's hands.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492