1951 (3) TMI 41

Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.

⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision

1951 (3) TMI 41

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....sting of three individuals one of whom was a minor. The assessee was asked to furnish a return of his income and in that return he stated that the annual value of his house property was ₹ 494 and did not show any other income. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer made enquiries as regards the acquisition of house property by the assessee during the year of account and he came to the conclusion that a sum of about ₹ 16,000 invested by the assessee on the purchase of house property came from his share of the profits of the partnership of which he was a member. On this basis, he added this sum as well as certain other amounts to the income of the firm and assessed the firm on the basis that the su....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....vested by the assessee in the year of account as part of the income of the firm. The Tribunal was of the opinion that as the addition of this sum considerably increased the firm's income and also affected the minor partner who had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership the sum of ₹ 16,000 could not be considered to be the income of the firm and reduced the assessment on the firm accordingly. Thereafter the Income-tax Officer purported to take proceedings under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act and added the sum of ₹ 16,000 to the income of the assessee and assessed him afresh. There was an appeal against this revised assessment and the matter was taken up before the Tribunal which held that there was no justificatio....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....the taxpayer has escaped assessment if he is acting on information which was already in his possession and within his knowledge. Unless it can be said that there is fresh information which was not in his possession at the time when the original assessment was made, action under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act is not justified. The mere fact that a different opinion on the same facts was taken by somebody else is not definite information leading to discovery on the part of the Income-tax Officer who was in possession of the same facts and entire facts at the time of the original assessment. We have got the fact that there was a detailed enquiry made at the time of the original assessment by the Income-tax Officer. At that stage he had defin....

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

1951 (3) TMI 41