1967 (7) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 1922, and the amount was included in his total income and brought to charge. This order has become final and is no longer in question. Proceedings under section 28(1)(c) against the assessee followed with the result a penalty of Rs. 1,000 was levied. Various objections were raised by the assessee which were all overruled in the first instance as well as in the further appeals. Pursuant to the directions of this court, a statement of the case has been submitted to us under section 66(2) on the following question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the failure of the assessee to include the income receipt of his wife in his return or returns justifies the imposition of the penalty under section 28(1)(c) ?" ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax" to furnish a return in the prescribed form. The form of return prescribed also indicates that it is the total income of the individual as such in terms of its definition that is required to be returned. But as we noticed, total income is not merely the total amount of income referred to in sub-section (1) but computed in the manner laid down in the Act. The total income as defined is not stated as of a particular individual or as his own total income. But, it is, however, implied in this provision because of sub-section (1) of section 4 that the total income will consist of what is referred to in section 4(1). That means the total income mu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come-tax. The question then is whether there is anything in section 16(3)(a)(iii) which obliges the husband to include the wife's income in the return of his total income. If, as we said earlier, the obligation under section 22(1) is but to return the total income of the assessee, that is to say, as the total income that has accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen to him, there is nothing in section 16(3)(a)(iii) which casts an obligation on the assessee, reading section 16(3)(a)(iii) literally, that he should include the wife's income in his return of his total income. D. R. Dhanwate v. Commissioner of Income-tax took that view. We are, with respect, inclined to accept it as correct. Akula Venkatasubbaiah v. Commissioner of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with the reasoning of Akula Venkatasubbaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax so far as the scope of section 34(1)(a) is concerned in the context of section 16(3). The court was not concerned with the scope of section 22(1) in regard to income that falls within the ambit of section 16(3)(a)(iii) ; nor was it concerned with the scope of section 28(1)(c). Section 28(1)(c) speaks of concealment of the particulars "of his income". To our minds this indication is unmistakable that the income there referred to is the income of the assessee himself and not the income of someone else which, because of the specific provision in that regard, is to be included by the Income-tax Officer for purposes of assessment in the total income of the assessee. In o....