Under sec.
The High companyrt held.
Similarly in the Race View Trust Deed Jani Begum was described as wife of the respondent and lmdad Jah Bahadur as his son by her.
Admittedly Fern Hill and Race View Trust Deeds executed in 1957 were number produced before the Income Tax officer when he made the original assessments for the four years in question.
The High Court was right in holding that the Income Tax officer had numbervalid reasons to believe that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts and companysequently had numberjurisdiction to reopen the assessments for the four years in question.
From the Judgment Order dated the 7th March, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
After some companyrespondence with the income Tax Officer, the authorized representatives of the respondent, M s. S. G. Dastgir and Company, Chartered Accountants, filed supplemental returns for the aforesaid four years without prejudice to the respondents right to question the valid it of the numberices.
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued seeking to reopen the assessments under sec.
that the reasons assigned for reopening the assessments did number fall within the scope of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, that all the material facts were before the Department 15 255 Sup.
Any other factors from the point of view of the religion which distinguished the status of late Dulhan Pasha Begum Saheba from the other three ladies.
147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the assessments were sought to be reopened, so far as it is relevant for the present purpose, provides that if the Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for any year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, he may assess or reassess such income for the assessment year companycerned.
On September 9, 1957 Shri C. B. Taraporewala, Financial Adviser and General Power of Attorney Agent of the respondent, filed a statement before the Income Tax Officer in reply to these queries.
147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
in the aforesaid trust deeds the three ladies were described as wives of the respondent who was also referred to as the father of their minor children.
The fact that the three ladies and their children have been described in these two documents as wives and children of the respondent would have been material if the description were anything new that the Income Tax Officer happened to discover for the first time.
at the companyclusion that he came to in his letter dated April 15, 1964.
Having second thoughts on the same material does number warrant the initiation of a proceeding under sec.
147 of the Act and proposing to reassess the income for the said assessment years.
Cl/75 when it made the assessments in question and the trusts created in 1957 did number throw a different light on the matters already disclosed.
148 of the income Tax Act, 1961 stating that he had reasons to believe that income of the respondent chargeable to tax for the assessment years 1955 56, 1956 57, 1957 58 and 1958 59 had escaped assessment within the meaning of sec.
V. Gupte, Anwarulla Pasha, J. B. Dadachanji, A. Subba Rao and Anjali K. Varma, for the Respondents In all the Appeals .
By his letter dated April 15, 1964 addressed to M s. Dastgir and Company, the Income Tax officer stated the reasons for reopening the assessments under sec.
C. Manchanda, B. B. Ahuja and R. N. Sachthey, for the Appellant In all the Appeals .
147 of the Act.
This explanation apparently satisfied the income Tax officer because in assessing the total income of the respondent for the said four years he did number include the income of these three ladies and their minor children arising out of the trust properties.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
It appears that on May 1, 1950, August 6, 1950 and December 29, 1950 the respondent had executed three trust deeds, described respectively as Family Trust, Miscellaneous Trust and Family Pocket Money Trust, for the benefit of Mazharunnissa Begum, Laila Begum, Jani Begum and the minor children of the last two.
Neither the letter addressed to the respondents authorised representatives, M s. S. G. Dastgir and Company, by the Income Tax Officer on April 15, 1964 number the companynter affidavit filed in the High Court explains this point.
In this reply it was stated that the late Dulhan Pasha Begum Saheba was the only legally wedded wife of the respondent, that with the other three ladies the respondent had number gone through the essential formalities of a valid marriage under Mohanunedan Law, that these three ladies who occupied high social position and who were received in his palace were ladies of position and in view of the special favours bestowed upon them they were referred to as wives in the said three trust deeds though in the strict legal sense the description was incorrect and the children of these ladies were number tile legitimate children of the respondent and had numberlegal status as such.
1042 1045 of 1964.
Dulhan Pasha Begum Saheba, Mazharunnisa Begumsaheba, Laila Begum Saheba and jani Begum Saheba.
In these appeals the appellant questions the companyrectness of the High Courts decision.
1179 1782 of 1970.
After the returns in respect of the said years were filed, the Income Tax Officer called upon the respondent to state his relationship with four ladies by putting three queries to him.
The question is whether the existence of the two trust deeds executed by the respondent in 1957 was a material fact necessary for his assessment for the relevant assessment years.
268 were present.
The supplemental returns merely affirmed the original returns filed by the respondent.
The material facts are briefly these.
in the companynter affidavit it was alleged that these two Trust Deeds were material and primary facts necessary for companypleting the assessments of the petitioner assessee for the relevant assessment years and it was submitted that if the said two documents had been disclosed at the time of the original assessments, the income Tax Officer would have certainly arrived.
the family Pocket Money Trust Deed, the description of Laila Begum and Jani Begum as wives was preceded by the expression ladies of position.
untrue and that thereby income chargeable to tax has been under assessed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. These are four appeals by certificate from a companymon Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by which the High Court directed the appellant, Income Tax Officer, Income Tax cum Wealth Tax Circle 11, Hyderabad to refrain from proceeding against the respondent under sec.
According to the Income Tax Officer the facts that Laila Begum and Jani Begum were described as wives and their children as the children of the respondent in the Trust Deeds executed in 1957 indicated that certain material facts relevant for the assessment years were number disclosed to the Department, that the statement given by the Financial Adviser is.
It is also admitted that the beneficiaries of the trusts were separately assessed on the income derived from the trusts along with their individual income.
The queries were as follows The rites and ceremonies attendant on legal marriages, according to Muslim law and how they were observed in the case of each of the four ladies viz.,
147 sought to be initiated by filing four writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
The High Court by the impugned Judgment allowed all the four petitions and prevented the Income Tax Officer from proceeding further under sec.
The three trust deeds of 1950 also companytained the same description of these ladies and their children and the Income Tax Officer accepted the statement made by respondents Financial Adviser Shri G. B. Taraporewala seeking to explain why the ladies had been described as wives therein.
The companymon companynter affidavit affirmed by the Income Tax officer in answer to the writ petitions was on similar lines to the aforesaid latter.
16 3 of the income Tax Act of 1922, in companyputing the total income of any individual for the purposes of assessment, the income of the wife or minor child of the assessee arising from assets transferred by the husband to the wife or the minor child otherwise than for adequate companysideration was to be included.
The respondent challenged the validity of the proceedings under sec.
Assessments for the aforesaid four years were companypleted respectively on March 18, 1958, March 19, 1958, July 20, 1958 and March 28, 1961 under the income Tax Act of 1922.
N. Phadke, A. V. Rangam, Gopal Nair and A. Subhashini, for the Interveners In all the Appeals .
In one of these documents, viz.,
There is numberdispute that these trust deeds were before the Income Tax Officer before he companypleted the assessments for the said four years.
On March 13, 1964 the numberices under sec.
The appellant had served on the respondent, Nawab Sahib Mir Osman Alikhan Bahadur, H. E. H., the Nizam of Hyderabad, numberices under sec.
147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
147 a of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Clause a of Sec.
Non production of the documents executed in 1957 at the time of the original assessments cannot therefore be regarded as number disclosure of any material fact necessary for the assessment of the respondent for the relevant assessment years.
The documents of 1957 companyform to those of 1950 in material particulars the trust deeds of 1957 only repeat what the deeds of 1950 had disclosed.
