TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessing authority did not accept the returns in the absence of accounts and other supporting evidence. Ex. P-1 notice states that the petitioner has purchased 2.50 acres and 2.34 acres of cardamom estate in the name of his minor sons, P.G. Subbaraju and P.J. Prabhu Ram, respectively, and that the source of income for purchasing these properties in the name of his minor sons has not been proved. Therefore, the assessing authority clubbed the income of properties purchased in the names of the minors with the income of the petitioner from his own properties and proposed to complete the assessment as if the petitioner owned 13.86 acres. Ex. P-1 notice was thereupon issued to the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely no application to the case on the admitted facts. The learned advocate appearing for the first respondent wanted to support Ex. P-1, on the ground that this is a case which clearly falls under s. 9(2)(a)(iv) of the Act and, therefore, it cannot be said that Ex. P-1 notice issued is without jurisdiction or in violation of any statutory provisions. The only question, therefore, that arises for determination in this original petition is whether, on the admitted facts and the available material, in computing the total agricultural income of the petitioner, can the income of the properties purchased in the name of his minor sons be included. Section 9(2)(a)(iv) reads : " 9. (2) In computing the total agricultural income of any individu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The documents under which 2.50 acres and 2.34 acres of cardamom estates had been purchased in the name of his minor sons, P. G. Subbaraju and P. J. Prabhu Ram, were made available before this court for perusal. The documents are written in Tamil and a correct and true translation of one of the documents in favour of P. G. Subbaraju has already been produced along with this original petition. The true and correct translation of the other document was also made available for perusal of this court. The recitals in both the documents are identical. There is nothing in the correct and true copy of the translation in favour of P. G. Subbaraju to show or indicate that the consideration for the assignment was given by the petitioner. The respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
