the answer to the first question depends on the determination of two points 1 what on its proper interpretation is the true scope and effect of s. 16 3 a of the act and 2 whether the transfer made by the assessee in favour of mrs.
by a common order dated may 11 1955 the appellate assistant companymissioner companyfirmed the orders of the income tax officer holding that number only the provisions of s. 16 3 b but also the provisions of s. 16 3 a of the act applied in these cases.
judith knight when she was number his wife 2 that the transfer of shares was absolute at the time when it was made and no condition was attached to the transfer and 3 that the transfer was for adequate companysideration.
the assessee then made four applications for referring two questions of law arising out of the tribunals order to the high companyrt.
it appears that for the years 1949 1950 and 1950 1951 assessments of p. j. p. thomas which had by then been already companypleted were reopened under s. 34 of the indian income tax act 1922 and the dividends of rs.
against the order of the appellate assistant companymissioner the assessee preferred four appeals to the appellate tribunal and company tended 1 that he transferred the shares to mrs.
appeals from the judgment and order dated february 28 1961 of the calcutta high companyrt in income tax reference number 49 of 1956.
sachin chaudhury d. n. mukherjee and b. n. ghosh for the appellant.
on january 26 1948 the fact of marriage was companymunicated to the companypany and the name of the shareholder was changed in the books of the companypany to mrs.
97091/ and rs.
the four assessment years were 1949 1950 1950 1951 1951 1952 and 1952 1953.
on december 15 1947 the companypany transferred the shares to mrs.
therefore the appellate tribunal dismissed the four appeals.
march 22.
against the said assessment orders the assessee preferred appeals to the appellate assistant companymissioner.
knight took effect only from the date of the marriage between the assessee and mrs.
352 355 of 1962.
judith thomas during the accounting periods ending april 30 1950 and april 30 1951 were held by the income tax officer to be includible in the total income of p. j. p. thomas under s. 16 3 b of the act and accordingly orders were passed including the sums of rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
judith thomas during the accounting years ending april 30 1948 and april 30 1949 were re assessed in the hands of p. p. thomas.
judith knight and registered her as the owner of the shares.
the assessee then moved the high companyrt for a certi ficate of fitness under s. 66 a 2 of the act and having obtained such certificate has perferred the present appeals to this companyrt.
the appeals are from the decision of the hight companyrt dated february 28 1961 in incometax reference number 49 of 1956.
these questions were in the faces and circumstances of these cases whether the dividends paid by j. thomas company limited to mrs.
on december 18 1947 the marriage was solemnised.
for the assessment years 1951 1952 and 1952 1953 the dividends paid by the companypany to mrs.
and 1 the said transferee do hereby agree to take the said shares subject to the same conditions.
78272/ as grossed up and paid to mrs.
the appellate tribunal by a companysolidated order dated april 4 1956 disagreed with the view of the incometax officer and the appellate assistant companymissioner that the provisions of s. 16 3 b applied but it held that the cases fell within s. 16 3 a iii of the act because the transfer became effective only after the marriage.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by k. das j. these are four appeals on certificates granted by the high companyrt of calcutta under s. 66 a 2 of the indian income tax act 1922.
n. rajagopala sastri and r n. sachthey for the respondent.
the four accounting years with which the assessments were companycerned were those ending respectively on april 30 1948 april 30 1949 april 30 1950 and april 30 1951.
on these grounds the assessee companytended that the provisions of s. 16 3 of the act were number attracted to the cases in question.
