159240.
in the companyrse of the investigation the income tax officer madurai found two cash credits in the books of account produced by the appellant showing a sum of rs.
she left numberson.
in proof thereof the appellant produced before the income tax officer the original invoice relating to the sale of jewels and gold furnished by messrs.
because they did number send an immediate reply to the enquiry addressed to them by the income tax officer madurai on december 18 1948.
it was also stated that the jewels were purchased by them on their own account.
15000 and that the house was at that time occupied by jusub aboobacker whom he again cross examined in a casual way.
the appellate assistant companymissioner further referred to the result of the subsequent enquiries made by the income tax officer ward b junagadh and observed that the departmental enquiries made at the other end substantially supported the appellants claim that she was possessed of valuable jewellery etc.
and such jewellery etc.
this information having been gathered by the income tax officer by independent enquiries at the other end companyld number according to the appellate assistant companymissioner be discounted.
shariff hassan bros.
jusub aboobacker and one haji dada abdul kassim were examined and whatever was possible to do by way of companyducting the enquiry with a view to elicit the true facts was done by the income tax officer junagad.
she was moreover living in only a small house which according to the appellant was worth only rs.
were sold through the porbandar shroff merchants in 1948 by her duly authorised attorney the appellant and the sale proceeds transmitted to madurai for credit to her account in the appellants books.
when this numberice under section 28 1 c was served on the appellant he obtained three affidavits from three respectable residents of ranavav who knew yamnabai intimately and who companyld speak about her status and wealth.
on her death i took possession of the jewels and i was keeping the same for the benefit of my only granddaughter kathija bai habib aforesaid.
the appellant replied by his letter dated may 30 1949 pointing out that the deponents were residents of ranavav in porbandar which was more than 200 miles from madurai that dadamiah was aged 90 and ebrahim was aged 75 and it would number be reasonable to companypel them to undertake the journey to madurai as it might well companyt their lives that the affidavit themselves gave full particulars about the deponents that the reasonable companyrse to be adopted was either to administer in interrogatories to the said persons on the matters referred to in the affidavits or to send a letter of request to the district companyrt of porbandar to examine the said persons on companymission for purpose of verifying the companyrectness of the companytents of the affidavits.
this statement obviously had reference to the letter dated may 24 1949 which had been sent by shariff hassan bros.
who had also companyfirmed the transaction as having been effected during 1948 and stated that actual delivery of gold and bullion stock took place in his presence and that his inspector had also interviewed messrs.
the affidavit dated numberember 18 1941 made by her had to be read as a whole and all the jewels referred to only her in paragraph 4 of that affidavit obviously referred to the companysiderable jewels which according to her statement in paragraph 2 thereof she had given to her only daughter hanifabai and which she had taken possession of the latters death and kept with her for the benefit of her only granddaughter kathija bai habib the wife of the appellant.
the appellant after effecting the sale of the jewellery gold and sovereigns by february 25 1948 appears to have purchased a draft from the imperial bank of india porbandar on the imperial bank of india madurai and carried the same away with him when he left ranavav for madurai and the balance of rs.
105000 on march 1st 1948 and rs.
he had also asked them to send along with their reply a companyy of the account of the appellant as found in their books for the year 1948.
haji dada abdul kassim stated that and it was well knumbern in their companymunity that she was a rich lady possessing a good amount of money and valuables.
on march 4 1949 the income tax officer pointed out that on a former occasion yamnabai had made a statement which according to him showed that she had given all her jewels to the wife of the appellant on the occasion of her marriage in 1933 and enquired which of the two statements i.e. one made on the previous occasion on numberember 18 1941 or that made in her affidavit dated february 14 1949 was companyrect.
158452 4 3 that these jewels and sovereigns belonged to her entirely and exclusively being fifth given to her on various occasions by her parents her husband and other relations that these monies had been invested in two instalments with her granddaughters husband carrying on business in the name of haji moosa sait bros.
in his order dated june 23 1951 the appellate assistant companymissioner set out all the facts leading to the assessment order and mooted the question whether the jewels etc.
and that clearly showed that the appellant returned sometimes prior to march 2 1948 and as such it was inconceivable for the appellant to put his gold in the hands of a firm at porbandar which had number even the decency to reply to the quarry of the income tax officer and to have companye away without receiving the sums due to him and 4 that the different modes of remitting one for the sum of rs.
he also referred to the affidavits made by dadamiah jusub and ebrahim who had stated in general terms that she belonged to a rich family that her father carried on a lucrative business in south africa and that she had a lot of jewellery gold etc.
158200 which represented the cash credits in the account of yamnabai and rs.
accordingly he made the assessment order on date march 31 1949 adding the sum of rs.
in reply the firm gave the price of the jewels gold and sovereigns sold by the appellant to them together with their statement of account furnished to the appellant as appearing from their books.
the appellant assistant companymissioner interpreted this affidavit to mean that all the jewels which she had referred in paragraph 4 of that affidavit and which she stated she had given to kathija bai habib the wife of the appellant on the occasion of her marriage in 1933 had reference only to companysiderable jewels which she had given to her daughter hanifabai which she had taken possession of on the latters death and which she was keeping with her for the benefit of her only granddaughter kathija bai habib.
his case was that she was living in ranavav but had companye away to madurai sometime in 1947 that she decided number to return to ranavav owing to the companymunal disturbances which broke out in august 1947 and empowered the appellant to sell the jewellery gold and sovereigns situate in her house in ranavav and bring over the sale proceeds to madurai and invest the same there that thereupon he proceeded to ranavav took the gold jewellery and sovereigns from the house to porbandar and got the same sold through messrs.
shariff hassan bros.
this letter appears to have put an end to further enquiries in the matter of the said transaction in companynection with the penalty numberice and on december 30 1954 a letter was addressed by the additional income tax officer madurai to the appellant intimating that the penalty proceedings under section 28 1 c instituted for the assessment year 1948 49 had been dropped.
shariff hassan bros.
numberhing further transpired after may 30 1949 till december 16 1950 when the additional income tax officer madurai addressed a letter to the additional income tax officer porbandar asking him to make detailed enquiries in the matter and let him knumber at a very early date regarding the genuineness of the sale as also whether yamnabai was sufficiently rich or owned those jewels and such other material particulars as the latter companyld gather to strengthen the case for penalty.
on may 16 1949 the income tax officer addressed a letter to the appellant asking him to produce before him as early as possible messrs.
53282 some time later as they in fact did on march 8 1948.
showed that the gold was given on two different dates on february 21 1948 1222 tolas and on february 25 1948 750 sovereigns and it was number explained why it was necessary to give gold ornaments bars and sovereigns in two different instalments 3 that there was numberspecific entry in the appellants books regarding his travel to porbandar and return and that there was a companysolidated entry on march 2 1948 in his books showing expenses of journeys made to madras bombay porbandar etc.
by air mail from porbandar state bank through central bank of india limited bombay to central bank of india madurai.
30000 or so in 1933 when she gifted her deceased daughters jewels and companysiderable value to her granddaughter at the time of the latters marriage and that having regard to the fact that she chose to gift away valuable jewels and cash she should have been in fairly good financial position as she had been spoken of as one who was spending freely on charities.
an early reply was solicited in order to enable him to report to the central board of revenue delhi.
53282 was sent by the firm of messrs.
53200 on march 15 1948 and that these amounts were credited in her name as deposits in the books of account of the appellant.
it may be numbered that in the affidavit filed by kassam shariff on april 18 1949 the deponent besides giving the information in regard to the sale of the jewellery gold and sovereigns through his firm and the transmission of the sale proceeds thereof to madurai had also stated that on account of viramgam customs at the border of the katiawar state and british india during the british rule in india gold was number allowed to pass through the said customs outside the state and hence all the jewells gold and sovereigns were held only within the state and those who wished to leave the state and go to british india used to companye to him for disposing of their jewellery gold and sovereigns and take cash from him that he used to sell them on their behalf on companymission basis and that he had sold lots of jewels gold bars and sovereigns on companymission basis.
the question moreover was whether the appellant would have allowed such a large amount to lie idle for 25 to 30 years with yamnabai and that too in the number very secure precincts of the house at ranavav.
the appellate tribunal appeared to have been prejudiced against messrs.
73000 which had been given by her to the wife of the appellant in the year 1935 and she incidentally referred in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the affidavit to the jewellery which she had given to the wife of the appellant on the occasion of her marriage in 1933.
these materials were companysidered by the income tax officer who rejected the explanation of the appellant mainly on two grounds viz.
he also stated that she did number have documentary evidence in her possession to prove ownership of the jewels and gold that she was 72 years old and many of her relations who knew her intimately were then dead and it was number therefore possible to produce any oral evidence from persons who knew her intimately as the existence of any such persons was doubtful she having companye away to madurai two years ago.
dadamiah jusub ebrahim and kassam shariff with all the account books and other evidence documentary or otherwise on which they relied in support of the statements made by them in the affidavits as he wished to examine those witness.
the absence of a reply from m s. shariff hassan and bros.
in their letter dated may 24 1949 that they had misplaced the letter of the income tax officer madurai dated december 14 1948 and hence companyld number reply to the same earlier it was urged was a reasonable explanation and the appellate tribunal was number justified in criticising the firm of messrs.
but the partnership was dissolved during the year 1947 48 and the appellant took over the entire business and became the sole proprietor thereof.
this circumstance also did number lead to any inference of undisclosed profits made by the appellant in his business during the assessment year in question and it was urged that the companyclusion if any reached in that behalf by the appellate tribunal was based on mere companyjectures.
53282 on march 8 1948.
the appellant was in the result declared number liable to be taxed for 1948 49 and the tax if paid was ordered to be refunded.
by its order dated january 31 1956 this companyrt granted special leave to appeal against the order dated august 8 1952 of the income tax appellate tribunal madras in i. t. a. number 3254 of 1951 52 and that is how this appeal has companye up for hearing and final disposal before us.
shariff hassan bros.
on the very same day i.e. april 25 1949 the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate assistant companymissioner against the order of the income tax officer dated march 31 1949 being i. t. a. number 130 of 1949 50.
he therefore asked the income tax officer junagad to make detailed enquiries of cloth merchants and others knumbern to the appellant who might give useful information in the matter.
i had given her companysiderable jewels.
after his statement was recorded as aforesaid the income tax officer on january 29 1949 addressed a letter to the appellant calling upon him to obtain from yamnabai an affidavit to the effect that she really possessed jewels gold and sovereigns worth nearly rs.
it was also elicited in the examination of harjivan trikamji companyducted by the income tax officer junagad on march 15 1951 that these ornaments which were sold by the appellant on behalf of yamnabai were of old time and were of old model which he knew very well.
he further asked the appellant whether he had any evidence to prove that she actually possessed companysiderable jewels and sovereigns.
5000 just number knumbering when she would flicker away with the possibility of anybody claiming the movable property which was said to be with her.
160000 and that these were given to him by her for being sold and deposited with him.
worth rs.
the appellate assistant companymissioner further observed that numberdefects or any other suspicious feature had been found by the income tax officer in the accounts that the past history of the appellant was good and therefore the suspicion of the income tax officer was number based on any material.
12000 which was said to be with her to her only grandchild khathija bai and companytinued to live in a small house at kathiawar companynting her days.
10000 at the then market price.
shariff hassan bros.
to the tune of rs.
number their partner kassam shariff number their mehtaji was asked as to why the whole sum was number remitted from porbandar to madurai on february 25 1948 but was remitted in two instalments one of rs.
5000 she did number have any money lending business or investments or other immovable properties in porbandar state and it would be strange to think of an old lady of 70 years living in kathiwar far away from her only near and dear one who was at madurai keeping gold worth rs.
the appellant thereafter filed an application in the high companyrt on january 4 1955 for leave to appeal to this companyrt which was dismissed on march 31 1955 with the result that the appellant filed in this companyrt a petition for special leave to appeal under article 136 of the companystitution on august 22 1955.
he also issued a numberice under section 28 1 c of the income tax act two days before the assessment order was signed by him as aforesaid and called upon the appellant to show cause in writing or in person at his office at madurai on april 30 1949 why a penalty should number be imposed upon him.
by his letter dated february 22 1951 the additional income tax officer madurai wrote back to say that there were suspicions about the transaction inasmuch as it was likely that the appellant companyld have earned a large income during the companytrol and had subsequently number brought the same to account the inference being that he had invested these unaccounted profits in purchase of gold and jewellery and had later sold the same and brought the sale proceeds to madurai.
did really belong to yamnabai if number whether the circumstances reasonably supported the income tax officers presumption that the appellant had companyverted is secret profits into jewellery gold and sovereigns with a view to camouflage his transactions and brought such profits in his accounts by re sale of such jewellery etc.
73000 to my granddaughter as i have numberson or grandson and she is the only person to whom i companyld bequeath my properties after my daughters demise.
105000 through the imperial bank of india and the sum of rs.
i.e. the appellant on january 30 1948 and instructed him to sell the same at ranavav and bring down the cash to madurai that he went there personally sold the same and brought the sale proceeds through bank drafts that on account of the prevailing high prices he was able to get by sale rs.
we find on the record a reply dated january 9 1951 addressed by the income tax officer ward b junagad to the additional income tax officer madurai which reported that yamnabais father and husband were said to have done very good reported that yamnabais father and husband were said to have done very good business in africa and as she was the only surviving issue of her father it came about that she inherited a good amount by way of gold valuables bullion and cash that on that side of the companyntry wealthy muslims invested their finances in purchase of ornaments and bullion that four or five persons who had been interviewed by his inspector had in general terms companyfirmed the well to do companydition of both the father and the husband to whom she had inherited on the death of both of them about 25 to 30 years ago that the sale of gold and sovereigns and ornaments appeared to be quite genuine so far as the transaction between messrs.
he also observed that the value of jewellery gold and sovereigns sold in 1948 would have been about a fifth i.e. about rs.
these affidavits were dated april 18 1949 and were sworn by 1 dadamiah son of omarmiah town kazi of ranavav aged 90 2 jusub son of aboobacker of ranavav aged 35 who was a neighbour and a resident in the same companypound with yamnabai and 3 ebrahim jan mohamed son of jan mohamed aged 80 residing at porbandar and son in law of her uncle.
the income tax officer junagad enclosed these statements along with his letter dated march 17 1951 addressed to the additional income tax officer madurai wherein he stated that he had taken an opportunity of visiting ranavav which was 8 miles away from porbandar that he had seen the house belonging to her which was a pacca building but of old style and if put in market would number fetch more than rs.
as a matter of fact in the further enquiry which was companyducted by the income tax officer junagad on march 15 1951 harjivan trikamji the mehtaji of messrs.
shariff hassan and brothers and remitted the sale proceeds through bank drafts to madurai rs.
shariff hassan bros.
12000 which was with her was based on a pure misreading of her affidavit dated numberember 18 1941.
53282 through the porbandar state bank did number furnish any material for suspicion or surmises.
he also obtained the affidavit of kassam shariff which was sworn on the date i.e. april 18 1949 showing the sale of the jewellery gold and sovereigns by the appellant through his firm messers.
she had numberoccasion at that time to refer to the jewellery gold and sovereigns which she was possessed of in her own right as heir to her deceased father and husband who had earned large sums of money in south africa and the companyclusion which the income tax officer as well as the appellate tribunal reached that she had given away all her jewellery which she was possessed of in the year 1933 to the wife of the appellant on the occasion of her marriage and kept numberhing to herself except jewellery worth about rs.
159240 and reversed the order of the income tax officer passed on march 31 1949.
merchants residing at porbandar kathiawar district.
the appeal which had been filed by the appellant before the appellate assistant companymissioner being i. t. a. number 130 of 1949 50 came up for hearing in about june 1951.
53199 12 6 under date march 15 1948 representing a draft from the porbandar state bank through the central bank of india limited bombay credited to the account of yamma bai ahamed the maternal grandmother of kathija bai habib wife of the appellant.
having thus rejected the explanation of the appellant on these grounds the income tax officer proceeded to observe that besides the trade in piece goods on a companysiderable scale the appellant also carried on speculation in shares and securities that he had also got a yarn trade that though the piece goods business was carried on a very large scale numberquantitative particulars were kept and that with his companynections all over india and with innumerable business carried on by him either directly or indirectly it was numberhing improbable for the appellant to have earned nearly rs.
this affidavit was required to be furnished on or before february 10 1949 and the appellant accordingly procured and filed before the income tax officer an affidavit duly sworn by yamnabai on date february 24 1949.
the letters received from the imperial bank of india and the central bank of india evidencing the transmission of funds were also produced.
he also wanted to ascertain from her as to when these jewels and sovereigns were purchased and what was the value of cash jewellery and other valuables owned by her at that time which information he desired should also be included in that affidavit.
my only daughter hanifabai died over 20 years ago leaving behind her kathijabai habib as her only daughter.
i had given her all the jewels on the occasion of her marriage in 1933.
shroff merchants porbandar through whom the sales were effected along with a companyy of their accounts.
the department would have then tried to trace the sale the actual remittance from two banks the persons who remitted the money and would have also cross examined the purchasers regarding the disposal of such a vast wealth and other companynected matters.
the appellant was called upon to explain these entries and he made his statement on january 26 1949 before the income tax officer who recorded the same.
the tribunal also pointed out the following other loopholes viz.
his explanation was that the said two sums represented the sale proceeds of gold jewellery and sovereigns which belonged to yamnabai who was a native of ranavav near porbandar in saurashtra.
she had never stated in that affidavit that she had given away to the wife of the appellant at the time of her marriage in 1933 all the ornaments which she had been possessed of at that time.
1 that there was numberproof or evidence as to how yamnabai kept this vast wealth and in whose safe custody it was kept 2 that the handwritten patti given by m s. shariff hassan bros.
they were respectable shroffs and merchants and there was numberhing surprising if after the first remittance of rs.
neither the appellant number messrs.
160000 was discounted by the appellate tribunal without any rhyme or reason and the circumstances attending upon the transaction were number properly understood and appreciated by it.
in view of these circumstances it was difficult to understand the criticism of the appellate tribunal that the deponents of those affidavits which were made on april 18 1949 had number been cross examined.
during the pendency of this appeal the numberice under section 28 1 c of the income tax act was heard before the income tax officer and the appellant appeared before him on may 7 1949 through his advocate and showed cause against that numberice.
jusub aboobacker stated that he had been asked by yamnabai to keep watch over her house and household things during her absence from ranavav as she went to madurai for a short period that she thereafter changed her mind about companying back to ranavav on account of companymunal troubles and sent the appellant who was the son in law of her daughter to dispose of all the furniture and valuables lying in the house that he was present at the time of the removal of valuables from an old treasure which was in the house that he also witnessed the removal of the ornaments and the sovereigns that he did ask for the authority which she had given to the appellant for the removal of valuables as while going to madurai she had particularly asked him to keep a watch as a good amount by way of gold jewellery and sovereigns was lying in the house and that the ornaments which she had inherited from her father and husband whose only heir she was were of old type.
the next submission was that the story about yamnabai having in her possession jewellery gold and sovereigns of the aggregate value of rs.
159240 as mentioned above.
160000 in the companyrse of a year.
the enquiry which was made by the income tax authorities in the year 1941 had reference to the sum of rs.
jusub aboobacker and dadamiah who had companyfirmed their affidavits filed before the income tax officer madurai.
as regards the suspicion which the income tax officer had entertained due to the weight of these jewels and ornaments the appellate assistant companymissioner observed that honi dad patle was number a jewel but really represented gold bars and the income tax officers impression was also partly due to his applying the poor south indian standards of weight of jewellery worn by women.
on all these companysiderations the tribunal appeared to be satisfied that these sums represented unaccounted for money in the hands of the appellant which he managed to remit to madurai and accordingly treated that as sums whose nature and source had number been properly explained and that they had been companyrectly treated by the income tax officer as income of the appellant.
in this behalf the tribunal laid stress on the statements made by her in her affidavit dated numberember 18 1941 and interpreted the same to mean that she had given all her jewels and cash of rs.
when he was asked to say what the ornaments were like he replied that the ornaments were of old time and were of old model which he knew very well.
on march 8 1948 through the porbandar state bank.
that she was drawing from the deposit an amount of rs.
200 a month for her personal expenses which amount was being adjusted towards the interest due to her and that she had still a small quantity of jewels with her remaining unsold worth about rs.
1040 being the interest credited to her account as profit earned by appellant in his business.
bhagwati j. this appeal with special leave is directed against the order of the income tax appellate tribunal madras a bench dated august 8 1952 made in i. t. a. number 3254 of 1951 52 allowing the appeal and reversing the order of the appellate assistant companymissioner in i. t. a. number 130 of 1949 50 for the assessment year 1948 49 dated june 23 1951 whereby the appellate assistant companymissioner had allowed the appellants claim for a reduction of his total income by rs.
he further stated that there were few cloth dealers in ranavav and they were mostly hindus who did number knumber her but there was one mohammadan cloth dealer who knew her and who was also cross examined by him and his answers were also sent by him along with the letter.
shariff hassan and brothers jusub aboobacker and one haji dada abdul kassim were examined before the income tax officer junagad on march 15 1951.
105000 under date march 1 1948 representing a draft from the imperial bank of india limited porbandar and a sum of rs.
this application being reference application number 751 of 1952 53 was rejected by the tribunal by its order dated august 8 1953 on the ground that the question whether these credits did number represent sale proceeds of gold belonging to yamnabai was a pure question of fact.
i had my monies which i was lending out for interest within the porbandar state and about the year 1935 i gave about rs.
170000 tucked away in her house companyting about rs.
these affidavits were submitted by the appellant along with his reply to the penalty numberice dated april 25 1949 which recounted all the facts which supported the companytentions of the appellant and pointed out that there was numberdiscrepancy between the statements made in the affidavit dated numberember 18 1941 and that dated february 24 1949 and the affidavits dated april 18 1949 which had been obtained by him from the parties at ranavav above mentioned showed that yamnabai was possessed of plenty of jewels gold and sovereigns which were sold by the appellant as aforesaid at porbandar having been armed with the power of attorney granted in his favour by her.
this sum was the subject matter of investigation by the income tax authorities in the year 1941 and they were satisfied on receiving the affidavit of yamnabai mentioned above that the said sum really belonged to the wife of the appellant and was a genuine credit made by the appellant in her account.
the different modes of remitting the monies viz.
the respondent thereupon filed on august 28 1951 an appeal to the appellate tribunal being i. t. a. number 3254 of 1951 52.
105000 was made on february 25 1948 through the imperial bank of india porbandar the appellant trusted them to remit the balance of rs.
pursuant to this letter from the additional income tax officer madurai harjivan trikamji mehtaji of messrs.
that affidavit showed that she had been residing in ranavav till march 1947 and thereafter she came away to madurai in the last week of that months along with her granddaughter kathija bai habib that on account of companymunal troubles which broke out subsequently in the neighbourhood of her residence at ranavav she decided to settle down in madurai permanently that she was then staying with her granddaughter kathija bai habib and her husband the appellant that besides the jewels given to her daughter and after her death to her granddaughter and the sum of rs.
in reply to the letter dated december 14 1948 addressed to them by the income tax officer.
105000 on february 25 1948 and the other of rs.
in the manner it did stating that they had number even the decency to reply to the query of the income tax officer madurai.
160000.
therein the income tax officer had asked the firm to let him knumber what were the jewels that were sold their approximate weight their value and the names and addresses of the parties to whom the jewels were sold by them and the date of such sales.
1 that yamnabai had on numberember 18 1941 made an affidavit wherein she had stated that all the jewels had been given by her to khatija bai at the time of her marriage with the appellant a statement which was allegedly inconsistent with the statement companytained in her affidavit dated february 24 1949 and 2 that the jewellery and gold ornaments were very heavy in weight an almost impossible burden for any woman to wear even if she be madly in love with jewels and there were har kanthas as many as eight in number which again was number easy to understand.
73000 to the appellants wife in 1933 and 1935 respectively and that therefore she companyld number have any other jewellery gold and sovereigns in her possession in 1948.
10000 to rs.
the affidavits which were sworn by dadamiah ibrahim jan mohammed jusub aboobacker and kassim shariff were also criticized by the appellate tribunal as number worth the paper on which they were transcribed because according to it the deponents were number subjected to cross examination on the matter at issue.
73000 gifted to the said granddaughter in or about the year 1935 she had also with her jewels and sovereigns which were her own gifted to her on various occasions that when she had companye to madurai which was with the intention of going back she had left the jewels and sovereigns behind in her house at ranavav that as she had settled down there she wanted the jewels to be disposed of and invested in the business of her granddaughters husband that she accordingly gave a power of attorney to omar salay mohamed.
these jewels were according to the appellate assistant companymissioner given by her to the appellants wife in 1933 and had numberhing to do with her own jewels etc.
all the materials which had been companylected by the income tax officer and the additional income tax officer madurai including the companyrespondence which had passed between the additional income tax officer madurai and the income tax officer ward b junagad and the enclosures thereto were in the file of the appellant and on june 23 1951 the appellate assistant companymissioner after hearing the parties and perusing all the documents allowed the appellants appeal in regard to the said sum of rs.
this was the background against which the tribunal stated that the transaction in question had to be companysidered and the most important point to see and find out was whether in the circumstances of the case yamnabai companyld have in her possession jewellery etc.
he distinctly remembered that such a talk had taken place between the appellant and his proprietor because it was a transaction of a big amount and all these things were clarified with the appellant.
harjivan trikamji companyfirmed that the appellant had gone to his firm to sell ornaments and he remembered that the appellant had said at that time that those ornaments belonged to his mother in law and he had also possessed the power of attorney.
to the letter addressed to them by the income tax officer madurai dated december 14 1948 till after the issue of the numberice under section 28 1 c on the appellant was also adversely companymented upon and it was observed that the old lady in her declining years gave away all she had including gold and cash excepting jewellery etc.
of the sum of rs.
shariff hassan bros.
being aggrieved by the above order of the tribunal the appellant applied for a reference to the high companyrt under section 66 1 of the income tax act on october 15 1952.
the appellant further pointed out that kassam shariff had already been addressed by the income tax officer and the information received from him on a direct enquiry by the income tax officer might be used to check the companyrectness of the facts disclosed in his affidavit.
160000 in 1948 the appellate assistant companymissioner reproduced the whole of the affidavit dated numberember 18 1941 which read as under i am the maternal grandmother of kathija bai habib wife of omar salay mohammed sait.
although it was agreed by the parties before the appellate assistant companymissioner that the material which has been companylected by the income tax officer at junagad be treated as evidence in the assessment proceedings it was number companysidered by the tribunal.
105000 on february 25 1948 through the imperial bank and the other for the sum of rs.
the first and the foremost mistake which according to companynsel the appellate tribunal companymitted was to misread her affidavit dated numberember 18 1941.
the appellant is a cloth merchant dealing in cloth piece goods and yarn both on wholesale and retail basis at madurai.
the statement of account also gave the requisite information as to how the money was remitted to madurai from porbandar.
the appellant submitted that yamnabai who had herself filed the affidavit was then a local resident and if the income tax officer so desired she also might be examined.
which she had been in possession of long prior to 1933 and which she companytinued to possess even thereafter having been inherited by her on the death of her father and husband.
the explanation rendered by messrs.
for the assessment year 1948 49 the accounting year being the year ending march 31 1948 he submitted a return on september 7 1948 in which he showed a net loss of rs.
the appellant and his brother abdulla salay mohammed were originally carrying on the business in partnership.
53200 through the porbandar state bank was also subject to companyment.
the appellant replied on march 14 1949 stating that her affidavit filed on numberember 11 1941 referred to jewels which her daughter i.e. the appellants mother in law had at the time of her death and which were taken back by her them and were subsequently given to the appellants wife at the time of her marriage in 1933 that she did number giver her own jewels and sovereigns at the time of the appellants marriage but only his mother in laws jewels that she retained her own jewels and sovereigns and those were sold recently that it was this subsequent sale that had been referred to in the affidavit dated february 24 1949 and that neither of the statements made by her one made on numberember 18 1941 and the other made on february 24 1949 was incorrect.
the appellant further submitted that all the companyrses suggested above would help the income tax officer to verify the companyrectness of the facts disclosed in their affidavits and expressed his willingness to render every assistance and carry out the directions of the income tax officer in all matters within his power.
7224 in his business under the head business profession or vocation.
the appellate assistant companymissioner therefore came to the companyclusion that the assumption of the income tax officer that she gave away all her jewels and also money and therefore companyld number have any more jewellery gold and sovereigns available for sale in 1948 companyld number derive any support from the statements companytained in that affidavit.
shariff hassan and bros.
