The explanation given by the appellant for this discrepancy was that the jewels in question had companye down to the family through several generations, and were number pure.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 19, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference Nos.
He also pointed out that while the weight of the ornaments according to the partition agreement, Ex.
companye tax Officer enquired into both these matters, the factum of partition and the quantum of income charge.
6 7 of 1950.
He also remarked that the sales were in round figures of 500 tolas, and that if the assessee had been taking old ornaments broken or unbroken for sale it is inconceivable that on three occasions out of six he took gold weighing 500 tolas in round figure.
The appellant took both these orders in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who again went into the matter fully, and observed that the appellant had been changing his version as to the true character of the sales from time to time.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, A. K. Dutt, S. K. Kapur and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant.
There, he sought to rely on a certain proceedings book as showing that the family jewels were really broken up, and that what was sold to Chunilal Damani was the gold thus separated.
On May 27,1945, the In.
On February 20, 1945, the members of the family entered into an agreement, Ex.
He also companysidered that the sale of gold in round figures of 250 or 500 tolas was a circumstance which threw companysiderable doubt as to the truth of the appellants version.
He observed that while the books of the appellant showed that what was sold was ornaments, the accounts of Chunilal Damani to whom they were stated to have been sold, showed sale of gold.
271 272 of 1955.
Against these orders, the appellant appealed to the Appellate Tribunal.
In the result, he companyfirmed the findings of the Income tax Officer, and dismissed the appeals.
He also referred to the fact that there was numberlist of the family jewels, and that there was numberhing in the family accounts to show what jewels were held by the family.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
He did number accept this explanation as, in his opinion, the jewels which were stated to have been in existence for three or four generations should have companytained much more of alloy than was shown in the accounts of the purchaser.
able to tax, and pronounced orders thereon on June 30, 1945.
The Income tax Officer rejected this explanation, because he held that the weight which was actually deducted for impurities in the accounts of the purchaser was almost negligible, and that what was sold was thus pure gold and number gold in old family jewels.
The Income tax Officer declined to accept this explanation.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. The appellant was a Hindu undivided family carrying on business as piecegoods merchants in the city of Calcutta.
The case of the appellant with reference to these sums was that at the partition the jewels of the family were sold in six lots, that the price realised therefrom was invested in the business, and that the credits in question related thereto.
A, and that appearing in the accounts books of Chunilal Damani, he remarked that while the explanation of the appellant before the Income tax Officer was that it was due to alloy and brass in the jewels, before him the position taken up was that it was due to pearls and stones which had been removed from the jewels, and that the gold companytained in the jewels was pure gold.
November 13.
In the companyrse of the assessment, the appellant filed a petition under s. 25 A of the Incometax Act, 1922, claiming that there had been a partition in the family on April 24,1945.
As regards the income assessable under s. 23, the dispute related to six sums aggregating to Rs.
In the result, both the appeals were dismissed.
On the petition under s. 25 A, he held that the partition was true, and that the family had become divided into five groups.
2,30,346 shown in the accounts as the sale proceeds of ornaments.
The present proceedings relate to the assessment of its income for the year 1946 47, the previous year thereto being June 12, 1944, to April 24, 1945.
Dealing with the discrepancy of 289 tolas between the weight shown in the partition agreement, Ex.
A, was 3422 tolas, the weight of gold which was actually sold to the purchaser was 3133 tolas.
He also followed it up by an order imposing tax on the appellant under the Excess Profits Tax Act.
