TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm styled, Messrs. Bhatnagar Brothers. In the year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58 the assessee brought a sum of Rs. 13,000 in the firm as his capital. The Income-tax Officer thinking that this amount Of Rs. 13,000 had been introduced by the assessee on behalf of the Hindu undivided family of which the partner was a junior, member proceeded to assess the Hindu undivided family by issuing a notice to it under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Ultimately, the Tribunal deleted this amount from the assessment of the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal felt that although there was a possibility of the amount coming from the Hindu undivided family there was not sufficient evidence to establish it as a fact. It observed in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return was also present. Learned counsel for the assessee has raised three contentions : (1) that there existed no reason for the Income-tax Officer to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment ; (2) that the Income-tax Officer had no right to change his opinion and proceed under section 147 after he had first come to believe on the same facts that the amount represented the income of the Hindu undivided family and not the present assessee ; and (3) that it was not a case of any omission or failure to file a return by the assessee. In our opinion the circumstance that Rs. 13,000 had been introduced in the present partnership by the assessee as his capital was a good reason for making the Income-tax Officer belie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on a change of his opinion. No case has been cited in which the assessment was made in respect of any assessee for the first time under section 34 of the old Act or section 147 of the new Act and the bar of change of opinion might have been resorted to to challenge the assessment. Section 147(a) does not debar an Income-tax Officer from having reason to believe that the escaped income belonged either to A or to B. There may be facts which may justify the two alternate inferences, viz., that the income might belong to A or might belong to B. If that is so the Income-tax Officer will have jurisdiction to proceed against either of the two persons. In case the proceeding against one perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt : "Once a notice is given by publication in the press and in the prescribed manner under section 22(1) every person whose income exceeds the maximum amount exempt from tax is obliged to submit a return and if he does not do so it will be deemed that there was omission on his part to make a return within the meaning of section 34(1)(a)." The contention of the learned counsel that this observation of the Supreme Court was applicable only to the cases of non-residents and not to the cases of residents is also without substance as the next sentence in the judgment of the Supreme Court is : "There is no warrant for the submission that section 22(1) applies to residents only and that an obligation to make a return on the part of a non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
