TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (10) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nadmissible in evidence? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 34 would rightly apply ? " The dispute relates to the assessment year 1946-47, the corresponding accounting year being the year ended on 16th October, 1945. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in the name and style of Hukam Chand Ulfatrai. On 12th January, 1946, the Central Government promulgated the Bank Notes (Declaration of Holdings) Ordinance, 1946, and the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946. By these statutes, currency notes of Rs. 1,000 ceased to be legal tender with effect from the midnight of 12th and 13th January, 1946. On 15th January, 1946, the assessee e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was income received in January, 1946, or earlier and not later. There can be no previous year in respect of income from an undisclosed source other than the financial year next preceding the assessment year. On this ground the addition of Rs. 73,000 in the assessment for 1947-48 must be deleted." As a consequence of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal mentioned above, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment for the assessment year 1946-47 and issued a notice to the assessee under section 34 of the said Act. The assessee, besides challenging the taxability of the said amount, also challenged the validity of the notice under section 34. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee must have received 15 high denominati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reference applications under section 66(1) of the said Act and question No. 3 as stated in one of the reference applications was : " Has not the Tribunal misdirected themselves in law in relying upon the affidavit of Manohar Lal, which was given in another case and which was not brought on the record of the applicant who had not been afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the said deponent ? " While disposing of an application under section 66(2) of the said Act, this court discussed the question of admissibility of the affidavit of Manohar Lal and the impact of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dhirajlal Girdhari Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, on the conclusion of the Tribunal, inter alia, based on the said a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring of the said appeal before the Tribunal. It may be pointed out in this connection that from the following passage from the copy of the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, B-Range, New Delhi, dated December 3, 1956, in Income-tax Appeal No. 51 filed by Messrs. Mamraj Chuni Lal, in respect of its assessment for the assessment year 1946-47, filed on April 27, 1955, it appears that there were two affidavits of Manohar Lal, besides Manohar Lal's statement recorded by him, when he heard the said appeals ...." From the said statement it does prima facie appear that reference to Manohar Lal's affidavit was not justified. The difficulty of the assessee, however, arises from the nature of the questions referred to this court. So ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learly constitute an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for their assessment for the assessment year 1946-47, thus attracting section 34(1)(a) of the Act. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. Deva Singh asked us to reframe the question by deleting the words " as to the applicability of clause (a of sub-section (1) of section 34 ". If these words are deleted, question No. (1) would read as under : " Is not the finding of fact by the Tribunal vitiated by relying on the affidavit of Manohar Lal which affidavit was inadmissible in evidence ? " The question is : Are we competent to reframe the question in the manner suggested ? This court can answer only those questions which are....