The Income tax Officer thereafter issued a numberice under Section 34 of the Act to the assessee in March, 1954, by which time the assessee had attained majority.
About two years later, the High Court decided the reference for the assessment year 1940 41 and held that the interest income companyld number be assessed in the hands of the father as Section 16 3 of the Act had numberapplication.
81 of 1960 Appendix .
The share income alone was therefore assessed on February 28, 1960.
The relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Tribunal reads as follows For the assessment year 1945 46 with which we are number companycerned, the old procedure of returning the income from the Bikaner Trading Company only was followed and the assessment was companypleted on April 30, 1946, the interest income being included in the hands of the father on February 28, 1950.
In respect of the assessment year 1945 46 the return of the income of the minor assessee submitted by the father included the share income from M s. Bikaner Trading Co. but the interest income was shown in the account of the father.
Halash Chand Rampuria was dissatisfied with the order of the Income tax Officer in dealing with the interest income for the year 1940 41 and the matter was ultimately referred to the High Court in a reference under Section 66 1 of the Act.
His mother died within a week after his birth.
At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law to the High Court under Section 66 1 of the Act Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made under Section 34 1 a of the Income tax Act was justified in law ?
Before her death she had executed a will by which she disposed of Rs.
She bequeathed by this will Rs.
5,00,000 received by her as a gift previously from her husband, Halash Chand Rampuria.
This sum of Rs.
3,00,000 was bequeathed to her son, Kamal Singh Rampuria.
Besides, the assessees mother bequeathed to the assessee 1/6th share held by her in M s. Bikaner Trading Company, The assessee, a minor, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership in respect of the said share.
The assessee, Kamal Singh Rampuria, was born in December, 1935.
3,00,000 was invested by the assessee in the firm of M s. Hazarimal Hiralal and earned interest.
The interest payments to the assessee though shown in his account were assessed against the father under Section 16 3 i of the Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called the Act .
1,00,000 made up of various sums to charities and the balance of Rs.
In the several returns made during his minority by his father, Halash Chand Rampuria, the income from the firm was shown in the sons account till the year 1944 45.
1,00,000 to her daughter, Rs.
The assessee appealed to the Tribunal and companytended that the Income tax Officer was wrong in starting proceedings under Section 34.
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by a certificate on behalf of the Commissioner of Income tax from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 12th September, 1963, in Income tax Reference No.
The assessment was duly companypleted on 25th March, 1955.
