TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue authorities for levying penalty on the assessee. The assessee is a lady and during the assessment year 1964-65, for which the relevant accounting year was the calendar year ended 31st December, 1963, the assessee was a partner in two partnership firms, M/s. Malabar Tile Works and M/s. Malabar Plywood Works, and along with her there were other partners including her husband and minor daughter. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1964-65 showing Rs. 4,754 as income from property and Rs. 4,748 as income from other sources. The assessee stated in the return under the column "Profits and gains of business and profession" against item (b) which required share in the profits of a registered firm to be shown "Pleas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn the amounts representing the shares of her husband and minor daughter in the two firms and there was accordingly no concealment by her of the particulars of her income so as to attract the penalty under s. 271, sub-s. (1), cl. (c). The Tribunal accepted this argument of the assessee and held that s. 271, sub-s. (1), cl. (c), could be invoked only if there was concealment of the "particulars of his income by the assessee" and the words "his income" referred only to the income of the assessee himself and not to the income of any other person which might be liable to be included in the income of the assessee by reason of s. 64, sub-s. (1), cls. (i) and (iii). The Tribunal, accordingly, held that the omission or failure of the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determination of the question arising in this appeal against the revenue but before we refer to that decision, we might first examine the question on principle as a matter of pure interpretative exercise. Section 271, sub-s. (1), cl. (c), provides for imposition of penalty on an assessee if it is found, inter alia, that the assessee has concealed the particulars of "his income". The question is what is the scope and content of the words "his income" occurring in this penal provision. Do they refer only to the income of the assessee himself or do they also take in the income of others which is liable to be included in the computation of the total income of the assessee by reason of the relevant provisions of the Act, such as s. 64, sub-s. (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income but this provision is subject to the other provisions of the Act and, therefore, if the income of any other person is declared by any provision of the Act to be includible in computing the total income of the assessee, such income would form part of the total income exigible to tax under s. 4 of the Act. Now, s. 64, sub-s. (1), is one such provision which provides for inclusion of the income of certain other persons in computing the total income of an assessee. Clauses (i) and (iii) of this sub-section provide that in computing the total income of an assessee there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly to the spouse of such assessee from the partnership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 139, sub-s. (1), was a return in the prescribed form and the form of the return prescribed by r. 12 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, did not contain any column for showing the income of the spouse and minor child which was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under s. 64, sub-s. (1), cls. (i) and (iii), and there was, therefore, no obligation on the assessee to disclose this income in the returns filed by her. This contention is also, in our opinion, fallacious and deserves to be rejected. It is true that the form of the return prescribed by r. 12, which was in force during the relevant assessment year did not contain any separate column for showing the income of the spouse and minor child liable to be included in the total i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o so, she was guilty of concealment of this item of income which plainly attracted the applicability of s. 271, sub-s. (1), cl. (c). It is obvious that on this view the order imposing penalty on the assessee would have to be sustained but there is a decision of this court in V. D. M. RM. M. RM. Muthiah Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 183 (SC), which is binding upon us and where we find that a different view has been taken by a Bench of three judges of this court. It was held in this case that even if there were any printed instructions in the form of the return requiring the assessee to disclose the income received by his wife and minor child from a firm of which the assessee was a partner, there was, in the absence in the return of any hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
