9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 will also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Cases Nos. 206, 207, 208 and 209 of 1970. These are five references at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madhya Pradesh. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee, Shri Manilal C. Desai, is a partner in a firm. While he was being assessed for income-tax the amounts standing in the name of his wife were included as his own money and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The contention was rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer as well as on appeal. But on further appeal before the Tribunal the contention was accepted and the reassessment was set aside. But on an application being made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax the following three questions have been referred to this court: " (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law to come to the conclusion that no act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be said that the assessee had failed to disclose any fact. He disclosed all the facts and he claimed an exemption. It was for the assessing officer to believe or not to believe his contention that the money had been gifted in favour of his wife. If at the time of original assessment his contention was accepted, it cannot be said that the assessee had failed to disclose fully or truly an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to exist between the Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court, but we need not go into that controversy as we think that in the circumstances of the present case it is not even a case of omission to include any property within the property of the assessee. If a particular property had been omitted from being taken into consideration, it can be said to be a case of omission. But in case an expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to answer the third question. Even the Tribunal had observed that it was not necessary to decide the third point but it was being decided because it was argued. We, consequently, decline to answer the third question. Our answer to the first two questions is as follows : (i) The Tribunal was justified in law to come to the conclusion that no action under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
