59,506 after including these amounts.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 8 12 1971 of the Kerala High Court in T.I.T. Reference No.
The assessee appealed to the Tribunal against the order imposing penalty and one of the arguments urged on behalf of the assessee in support of the appeal was that there was numberobligation of the assessee to show in her return the amounts representing the shares of her husband and minor daughter in the two firms and there was accordingly numberconcealment by her of the particulars of her income so as to attract the penalty under section 271 sub section 1 clause c .
The Revenue thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
The assessee, however, did number show in the return the amounts representing the shares of her husband and minor daughter in the firms of M s. Malabar Tile Works and M s. Malabar Plywood Works though they were clearly includible in companyputing the total income of the assessee under section 64 sub section 1 clauses i and iii of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1000, he referred the case to the Assistant Appellate Commissioner who issued numberice under section 274 and after hearing the assessee, imposed a penalty of Rs.
This led to the filing of an application for a reference by the Revenue and on the application, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is companyrect in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271 1 c ?
The Income Tax Officer while making the assessment included the amounts representing the shares of the assessees husband and minor daughter in the profits of these two firms in the assessment of the assessee and taxed the assessee on a total income of Rs.
The High Court took the view that the words used in section 271 sub section 1 clause c were his income and the amounts representing the shares of the assessees husband and minor daughter in the two firms companyld number be said to be the income of the assessee, though in companyputing her total income these amounts were liable to be included by reason of section 64 sub section 1 clauses i and iii and therefore, the assessee companyld number be said to have companycealed her income when she did number disclose these amounts as forming part of her income in the return submitted by her.
C. Manchanda and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal arises out of proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities for levying penalty on the assessee.
4754 as income from property and Rs.
The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1964 65 showing Rs.
The assessee is a lady and during the assessment year 1964 65 for which the relevant accounting year was the calender year ended 31st December, 1963, the assessee was a partner in two partnership firms, M s. Malabar Tile Works and M s. Malabar Plywood Works and alongwith her there were other partners including her husband and minor daughter.
1086 of 1973.
T. Harindranath and T. T. Kunhikannan for the Respondent.
The assessee stated in the return under the companyumn Profits and Gains of Business and Profession against item b which required share in the profits of a registered firm to be shown Please ascertain from the firms files the Malabar Tile Works and Malabar Plywood Works.
91/69.
4748 as income from other sources.
Since the assessee had number shown these amounts as forming part of her total income in the return submitted by her, though they were clearly includible in her total income under section 64, sub section 1 clauses i and iii , the Income Tax Officer was of the view that the assessee had company cealed the particulars of her income and rendered herself liable to penalty under section 271 sub section 1 clause c , and since the minimum penalty leviable on the assessee was Rs.
