TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Commissioner's assessment under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for 1951-52</h1> <h3>TB. Hanumantharaj (Decd.) (By Legal Representatives) Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras I</h3> TB. Hanumantharaj (Decd.) (By Legal Representatives) Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras I - [1978] 111 ITR 414 Issues:1. Whether the assessment for the year 1951-52 was barred by limitation under section 34(3) of the Income-tax ActRs.2. Whether the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Act applied in the assessment of the caseRs.3. Whether the failure to disclose share income from the firm was due to inadvertenceRs.4. Whether the provisions of section 28(1)(c) could be applied after the disruption of the Hindu undivided familyRs.Analysis:1. The case involved a reference regarding the assessment for the year 1951-52 under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment was completed on March 31, 1960, and the question of law referred was whether the assessment was barred by limitation under section 34(3) of the Act. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, had disclosed income from property and business in the return filed by the 'karta' of the family. The Income-tax Officer added undisclosed income from sources not mentioned in the return, leading to a dispute on the limitation period for assessment.2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal considered the case under the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Act, as the assessee had not disclosed certain income sources. The Tribunal upheld the assessment, stating that the assessee had concealed income by not disclosing profits from a firm and cash credits. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the provisions of section 28(1)(c) were applicable due to the assessee's failure to disclose income sources.3. The Tribunal rejected the plea of inadvertence regarding the failure to disclose share income from the firm. Despite the assessee's argument that the omission was unintentional, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided any explanation for certain undisclosed income. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 28(1)(c) applied based on the assessee's conduct in not disclosing income sources.4. The issue of the Hindu undivided family's disruption and the applicability of section 28(1)(c) post-disruption were raised by the assessee's counsel. However, the court focused on the assessment stage and concluded that the provisions of section 28(1)(c) applied due to the failure to disclose income sources, regardless of the family's status. The court rejected the contentions raised by the assessee and ruled in favor of the Commissioner, upholding the assessment and costs.Overall, the judgment clarified the application of sections 34(3) and 28(1)(c) in assessing undisclosed income sources, emphasizing the importance of disclosure and the consequences of concealment, irrespective of the family's status or inadvertent omissions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
