TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the additions made on estimate under the head 'Income from other sources' on account of inadequate withdrawals did not attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The assessee was a partner in a firm during the assessment year 1969-70. His minor sons and wife were paid interest by the firm. These sums were to the tune of Rs. 6,098. They were not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer added this amount to the total income of the assessee. Another item added to the total income of the assessee was a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall be included (a) so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly-... (ii) from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm of which such individual is a partner. " The above were the notes in the form prescribed in the years prior to 1969. In 1969, the form for return of income was slightly altered. The note for showing the income of spouse and minor children was required even in terms of the form prescribed in the year 1969. The wordings of the notes were slightly different but the substance was substantially the same as in the form prior to 1969. It is noteworthy that even in the form prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. K. Kochammu Amma, Peroke [1980] 125 ITR 624. It cannot be denied that the two Hon'ble judges who decided this case did hold that despite the want of a separate column for returning the income of spouse and minor children, the Act did cast an obligation upon the assessee. It, however, refrained from referring the matter to a larger Bench and preferred not to disagree with the decision in Muthiah Chettiar's case [1969] 74 ITR 183 (SC). The law of the land thus remained as laid down in Muthiah Chettiar's case [1969] 74 ITR 183 (SC). In that view of the matter, the present case must be decided in the same manner. No penalty could, therefore, be levied for not returning the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
