1966 (1) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... initiated action for assessment and served a notice upon Manji Dana under section 34(1)(a) on March 25, 1955, for assessment of escaped income. In response to the notice, Manji Dana filed his return in the status of an individual, and the order of assessment was completed in the status of an individual on March 15, 1956. In appeal the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal. Neither before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, nor before the Tribunal did Manji Dana set up a ground that since the original order of assessment was made in the status of a Hindu undivided family, it was not competent to the Income-tax Offic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Rules, 1946, made in exercise of sub-section (8) of section 5A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which provided that : " The appellant shall not, except by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal ; but the Tribunal, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal under this rule : Provided...." The Tribunal observed that the contention sought to be raised before them had never been taken before the Income-tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and since in arriving at a decision on the question raised thereby would necessitate investigation of "fresh facts", the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under section 34(1)(a) by the Income-tax Officer has not been included in the printed paper-book, but it is common ground that pursuant to that notice Manji Dana submitted a return in the status of an individual and the Income-tax Officer proceeded to assess him in the status of an individual on his escaped income. Comparing the original assessment order dated December 3, 1946, with the order of assessment made under section 34(1)(a), it appears that the quantum of total business income included in the latter order does not tally with the business income which was computed in the original assessment. There is no evidence on the record that the income which is assessed in proceedings under section 34(1)(a) was not his separate income, and fr....