LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA versus SMT. ANUSUYA DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COMMISSIO~ER OF INCOME-TAX,
CALCUTI'A
WEST BENGAL,
•
v.
SMT. ANUSUY A DEVI
Nol'ember 28. 1967
[J. C. SHAH Al'[) V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
illco111e-1ax Act (II of 1922), s. 66(1), (2) and (4)--Question nor
1aiscd before 1'rihuntJl either in appeal or applicalion to state a case-If
Jligh Court can direct reference on such question-If High Court must
r.nsk'('f quc~tion referred-Power to rejran1c question and call for addi-
tional state1nen1 fro1n Tribunal when to be exercised.
The hu,band of Ihe respondent died in October 1944. For the assess-
nlcnt year 1945-46, his cstat·~ v.·as assessed to income-tax on a tot.al income
of Rs. 22, I 60.
In January I 946, the respondent
encashed 584 high
denomination notes of the value of Rs. 5,84,000. There were proceed-
ings for rc-as~sment of the total income of the asses.see, wherein it wa"
stated before the Income-lax Officer, on behalf of the respondent,
thal
during the previous 30 years, her husband was giving gifts to the respon-
dent and was also setting apan money exclusively for her and their children
aod, that the fund so accumulated amounting to Rs. 5,84,000 remained
in a cupboard and was found after bis death, and therefore, the amount wao;
not liable to tax as the income of her husband in the previous year. The
I ncomc-tax Officer disbelieved her explanation and brought the amount of
Rs. 5.84,000 to tax as Ire income of the respondents' husband from an
11ndiscloscd source in the year of account 1944-45.
The order wac; con-
firmed hy the Appellate Assi..;tant Commissioner ~·ho also referred to the
rcspon<lent's declaration
under the
High
Denomination
Bank Notes
CDcmonctisa1ion) Ordinance that the amount v,,ras made over by the de.
ceasc<l. some time before his death, to her for her benefit and that of her
8 minor "on.... The Appellate Tribunal also
uph~ld the order of the
JnconH~-ta:'I: ()fficcr. The respondent then filed an application under s. 66
( 1 l to ... ralc :1 c:P\C to 1he High Court.
In 1hat appJication she asserted
that ..,i94 out of the 584 notes were received from a Bank in Calcutta in
rc<lli1,ation of a cheque drav.n for R'\. 4,94.000 in Septcmhcr 1945 hy her
cJJe1,t '\On.
The Tribunal rejected the applic;.itior. The High Courl undi;r
...... 66(2) directed the Trihunal to state a case on 1hc que1,tion:-Whcther the
·rribunal crrc<l in law hy basing its deci'\ion on a part of the evidence
i)-.'TlOring 1hc ... tatement made a~ regards the withdraw:il or Re;. 4.94.000
hv 494 pi·:..·cc-; of Rs. 1,000 note'\ from the
h:ink.
The ·rribunal, while
.... uhmittin~ the statement of case. pointed out that the statement in the
petition under s. 66( 1) \Vas m::iterially different from that made hefore the
Income-tax Officer and that the Tribunal v.·as not invited to consider. at
the hearin~ of the appeal, the truth of that statement. The Hii:h Court.
thcrcafl·~r. heard the reference and decided in favour of the a~sessec. ho1d-
in~ that:
(!) the Tribunal ignored a part of the declaration made by the
re~pondent that 494 high denomination notes were received from the hank
in Calcutta in September 1945; (2) no opportunity was given by the Tribu-
nal to the r~pondent to clear up the discrepancies in her statements made
:1r the time of the disclosure of the high denomination note, :ind before the
Tncon1c-tax Officer: and (3) it was not open to the Court hearing a refe·
rence under s. 66(2) to hold, contrary to the decision recorded at the time
\\.'hC'n the TribunaJ \\·:1-. direct·~d 10 stare the case on a question. th;:it the
qucc.tion Jid nol arise out of the order of the Tribunal.
B
c
D
g
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
G
C.L T. V. ANUSUYA DEVI
467
ln appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) In the question which was directed to be referred it was
assumed that the Tribunal had before it the statement about the receipt of
494 currency notes from the bank at Calcutta. But that evidence was not
before the Tribunal. No such statement was made either before the ln·
come.tax Officer, or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or in the
appeal before the Tribunal. The statement was made for the first time
in the petition under s. 66(1). Even in the application it was not suggested
that the finding of the Tribunal was vitiated because some relevant evi-
dence was ignored. The order of the Tribunal was not therefore open to
the objection that the appeal before it was decided on a partial review
of the evidence. [471 B, D-FlExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.