TMI Blog1972 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR DAYAL C.J.- This order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 205 of 1970 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 interest realised on those amounts was included in his income. The assessee, however, filed his wealth-tax returns for all the years in question from 1957-58 to 1961-62 and in all the years he claimed exemption for the amount standing in the name of his wife. The Wealth-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not denied that the assessee had disclosed in his return this amount which was in the name of his wife. He had claimed an exemption on the ground that this money had been transferred to his wife by means of a gift. Therefore, 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 any material fact. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the notice could not be treated as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. We, therefore, think that the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal and setting aside the reassessment. With regard to the third question we need only say that that question does not arise in view of the opinion we have expressed regarding the first two questions. There being no power to reopen the assessment once made, it is not necessary 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 secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
