1951 (6) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s business at Diamond Harbour had been closed down in 1350 B.S. and as the business at Falta was also being wound up, the staff was otherwise busy and had no time to spare for the preparation of the return. Thereafter a notice was served under Section 22(4) of the Act, calling for accounts but there appears to be no definite finding as to whether the accounts were actually produced or not. In any event there was something like a profit and loss account which the assessee prepared and submitted at the suggestion of the Income-tax Officer. Ultimately as there had been default in submitting the return the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment under Section 23 (4) of the Act. So far as the making of a best judgment assessment is co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the name of the son Chittaranjan Baidya. The question which has been referred to this Court reads thus:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 7,629, the partnership income from Sir Govind Rice Mills in the name of the applicant's son, was rightly added to the income of the applicant as his own?" The question looks like a question of fact and had there been a firm finding by the Tribunal as regards the material on which the sum of Rs. 7,629 had been added, we would have no difficulty in disposing of the question against the assessee at once. But it appears that the Tribunal upheld the addition only on the ground that the assessee had been asked to show cause why the income received by his so....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he material on which the Income-tax Officer had come to form a suspicion that the son was in fact a benamidar for the father. So much about the initial stage. As regards the last stage at which the sum was actually added, again the order of the Income-tax Officer does not give any indication as to whether he had any material at all on which he could properly hold that the son was a mere name-lender. All that was before him appears to have been that Chittaranjan was the son of the assessee, that Chittaranjan an adult son was a partner in a rice mill and that--this I shall assume--some information had reached him that Chittaranjan was a benamidar. I am not prepared to hold that on this material alone particularly without confronting the asses....