LexINCOME-TAX OFFICER, CALCUTTA & ORS. versus RADHESHYAM LADIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CALCUTTA & ORS. v. RADHESHY AM LADIA APRIL 21, 1987 B [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND RANGANA'tH MISRA; J.] Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 34(1)(a)-Assessee-Failure to disclose share income of wife and minor child-Whether thete is failure to disclose fully and truly all material. C The respondent was assessed to Income tax for bssessment year 1960·61 under s. 23(3) of the Income Tax Ad, 1922 and for the assess• ment years 1961·62 and 1962·63 under s. 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The validity of the notices issued under s. 147(a) redd withs. 148 of the Act of 1961 in respect of these three ass~ssmeni ~ears was chal· lenged by the respondent under Act 226. 'though the notices did not D disclose any material to justify their Issue, ihe Income Tax Officer in hk return before the High Court stated that tlurlng ·the course of assess- ment for the year 1963-64 of the wife of the respondent, she contended having received valuable assets from the respondent between 11th December 1955 and 28th October, 1960 without adequate consideration in money or money's worth. The income from the said assets which E should have been Included in the return of the respondent was uot so included by him and thai the capital gains arisen therefrom was also not included or disclosed by the respondent in his returns. A Learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in V.D.M. RM. M.RM. Mathiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of F Income-tax, Madras 74 ITR 183 quashed the notices. The appeal of the Revenue failed before the Division Bench. Dismissing the appeal, HELD: By failure of the assessee to include the share income of G his wife and minor child in his return, it cannot be deemed that he has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment within the meaning of s. 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act.1961. [1107Bj V.D.M.RM. M.RM. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of H Income-tax, Madras, 74 ITR 183; Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. v. 1 l02 . _,,._ . ., - ~·· ·li. J ' -1' INCOME-TAX OFFICER v. RADHESHYAM [MISRA, J.] 1103 Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, 78 ITR 466 and Commissioner A of Income-tax, Kera/av. Smt. P.K. Kochammu Amma, Peroke, 125 ITR 624, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1187 of 1974. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.1973 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 13 ! of 1971. S.C. Manchanda and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. B B.P. Maheshwari, S.P. Mittal and R.S. Rana for the Respon- C dent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by the Revenue is by certificate and is, directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of D the .Calcutta High Court which upheld the decision of a single judge in a writ petition quashing the notices issued to the petitioner under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act of 1961. in respect of assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62. and 1962~63. ' · Respondent was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year E 1960-61 under section 23(3) of the Act of 1922 on 4.3.1961 and for the following two assessment years under section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 on 10th and 11th June, 1963., respectively. Notices under section l;l7(a) read with section 148 of the Act of 1961 were issued to the respondent in respect of t.hese three assessment years whereupon he challenged the validity of those notices by filing an application under F Article 226 of the Constitution, Though the notices did not disclose any material to justify their issue, the Income-tax Officer in his return to the rule nisi before the High Court stated: .·" ..... The assessment for the year '!963-64 of Smt. Sushila Bala Devi Ladia, wife o,f the petitioner, was taken up by G me. During the course of the said assessment, she conten- de'd having received valuabl~ assets from the petitioner bet- ween 11th Deceml:)er, 1955 and 28th October, 1960. with- out adequate consideration in money or money's worth. It was contended on her behalf that she received over 1203 tolas of gold in jewellery on or about 11. 12./ 1955 and H A B 1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R. Rs.1,00,000 in cash on or about 28.10.1960. It was further contended on her behalf that the said jewellery was sold between the years 1959 and 1962. The income from the said assets which should have been included in the return of the petitioner was not so included
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.