Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2005 (2) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The reference relates to the assessment years 1978-79, 1980-81 to 1982-83. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The respondent-assessee is assessed under the Income-tax Act in the status of an individual. He was a partner in the firm- M/s. Sarang Products, representing his Hindu undivided family as its karta. His wife, Smt. Prabha Anand was also a partner in that firm. In the return of income filed by the respondent he had not declared the share income of his wife. In the assessments the share income arising to the wife of the respondent from the firm-M/s. Sarang Products was not included in the total income of the respondent. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llahabad High Court in Madho Prasad v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492 and since such clubbing was not done by the Income-tax Officer. I am of the opinion that the action under section 147(a) was rightly initiated by him. The appeal on this point is, therefore, rejected." Feeling aggrieved the respondent preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the materials on record and also the provisions of section 64(1)(i) of the Act was of the view that there was no obligation on the respondent to disclose the share income arising to his wife and, as such, the respondent's not disclosing the share income of his wife would not entitle the Department to take action under section 147(a) of the Act. The orders of....