35,500 in the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1948 49, in Indian Woollen and Silk Stores, Ranchi, of which the assessee was a partner.
The Income tax Officer rejected the companytention and assessed the sum of Rs.
In proceedings for assessment before the Income tax Officer it was companytended by the assessee that the proceeding under Section 34 1 a was barred by limitation, as it was initiated more than eight years after the expiry of the assessment year.
The appeal filed by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did number succeed.
The Appellate Tribunal held in respect of the appeal for the assessment year 1947 48 that a sum of Rs.
The Income tax Officer then companymenced a proceeding for assessment of the income of the assessee for the year 1948 49, under Section 34 1 a after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income tax.
At the instance of the Commissioner of Income tax, the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court of Patna Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal was right in holding that proceedings under Section 34 1 a of the Income tax Act for the assessment year 1948 49 in the case of the assessee was invalid ?
The Hindu undivided family appealed against that order.
The Appellate Tribunal, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hiralal Amritlal Shah v. K.C. Thomas 1st.
The Income tax Officer included those sums as the income from undisclosed sources in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family styled M s. Narmal Ramkumar of which the, assessee was a member in the two respective assessment years.
35,500 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
But in respect of the appeal for the year 1948 49, following the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal relating to the assessment year 1947 48, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed that the sum of Rs.
The Commissioners sanction was specifically given on the direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
held that the proceeding under Section 34 1 a had become barred and was therefore invalid.
Income tax Officer, M Ward, Bombay .,
17,425 represented the income from from undisclosed sources but it companyld number be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family.
Against that order the Commissioner of Income tax has appealed to this Court.
17,425 in the year of account relating to the assessment year 1947 48, and Rs.
C. Shah, C.J. In proceedings for assessment of income tax for the years l947 48 and 1948 49, the Income tax Officer, Ranchi, held that Banwari Lal Agarwal, hereinafter called the assessee, had invested Rs.
