9,701 j .
26,000/ .
Case No.
68,550/ to the income of the appellant and imposed on it a penalty of Rs.
509E F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
v. Collector of Madras Anr.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujrat 1967 63 I.T.R. 416, applied.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are The appellant, a Hindu undivided family companysisted of Gauri Shankar, the father, and his three sons viz.
836 of 1963.
Meanwhile, on March 19, 1957, an application under section 25 A of the Act was made to the Income Tax officer for an order recording partition of joint family property in definite portions, which according to the application had taken place amongst the members of the Hindu undivided family on June 22, 1956.
S. A. Raju Chattiar Ors.
P. Nayar, for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This is an appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under section 66 A 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter referred to as the Act from its judgment dated September 18, 1969 in I.T.R. Misc.
The Income Tax Officer on being satisfied after making enquiries that a companyplete partition of the joint family property has taken place, recorded an order under section 25A 1 of the Act on March 26, 1962, accepting the partition with effect from June 22, 1956, as claimed.
He was succeeded by his son, Chandrabhan as Karta of the family.
Gauri Shankar, the karta of the family who was incharge of the affairs of the family during the relevant year which extended from April 13, 1945 to April 12, 1946, the assessment year being 1946 47, died on April 2, 1946.
From the judgment and order dated the 18.9.1969 of the Allahabad High Court in I. T. R. Misc.
26,000/ imposed the Income Tax Officer by his order dated March 20, 1958, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who reduced the Penalty to Rs.
Even on March 20, 1958.
Not satisfied with THIS reduction, the appellant went up in further appeal to the Income tax appellate Tribunal and raised before it a number of companytentions Amongst other things, it was urged before the Tribunal that since the Hindu undivided family had disrupted on June 22, 1956, as accepted by the Income Tax officer in his aforesaid order date March 26, 1962, passed under section 25 A l cf the Act, the imposition of the penalty by the Income Tax officer on March 20, 1958, after the disruption of the family was bad in law and companyld number be sustained.
Case No.
Chandrabhan, Bengali Lal and Brij Kishan.
C. Sharma, V. N. Ganpule, D. K. Jain, Anup Sharma and P. C. Kapur, for the appellant.
After hearing the Appellants representative the Income Tax Officer felt satisfied that the appellant had deliberately companycealed its income and furnished an inaccurate return.
Against the penalty of Rs.
886 of 1971.
Accordingly, by his order dated March 20, 1958, he added a sum of Rs.
15,000/ .
v, Commissioner of income Tax.
when the penalty was imposed, there was numberorder under s. 25A l of the Act lt was only on March 26, 1962, that the partition was recognised and order under S. 27A 1 of the Act was passed.
There was, thus, numberbar to the imposition or the impugned penalty.
While rejecting the other companytentions raised on behalf of the appellant, the Tribunal upheld this companytention by its order dated March 6, 1963.
He thereupon issued a numberice dated March 15, 1957, calling upon the appellant to explain the discrepencies in the accounts as also in the cash credits and to show cause why a penalty under section 28 1 c of the Act be number imposed upon it.
The appellant had, in the first instance, filed a return showing an income of Rs.
Hyderabad 1957 31 I.T.R. 867 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab v. Mothu Ram Prem Chand 1967 66 T.R. 638, number applicable HELD FURTHER In the instant case, there was number a whisper of the application under s. 25A 1 of the Act by the appellant on March 15, 1957, when the penalty proceedings were initiated against it.
On scrutiny of the relevant material, the Income Tax Officer found a number of discrepencies in the accounts of the appellant and also numbered the existence of cash credits to the appellants account in the books of another firm viz.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sanchar Sah Bhim Sah 1957 27 I.T.R. 307.
836 of 1963.
Sen and 5.
M s. Tilyani Glass Works and a certain sum deposited in an account styled as Abdul Wahid Khan Sons.
1956 29 I.T.R. 241 Mahankali Subba Rao Mahankali Nageswara Rao Anr.
Acceding to the request of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Tribunal referred the above mentioned question to the High Court which answered the same in the negative The appellant thereupon applied to the High Court and obtained the aforesaid certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court.
