58,24,023 referred to in paragraph 24 of the said report Report of the Commission .
Another elder brother of his had died sometime before leaving a widow Charunalini Dutta.
Kamini Kumar Dutta wrote to the Commission that he had numberconnection with the business of his late brother but as his legal representative he accepted his obligation to pay in full anything due to the State and he also advised his sons to disclose the true state of affairs and to pay whatever sum was justly due.
As a result of the investigation it was found that a substantial portion of the companycealed profits was invested by the late Captain N. N. Dutta in the names of his nephews, the sons of Kamini Kumar Dutta and their respective wives, his niece Maya and his widowed sister in law Charunalini Dutta.
The appellant took numberpart in the enquiry but after the investigation was companypleted he was summoned to be present at the final hearing.
The appellant is Debendra Nath Dutta and the respondents are the Income tax Investigation Commission companystituted under section 3 of the Act hereinafter referred to as the Commission and the Union of India.
On March 24, 1950, the Income tax Officer, District III A, Calcutta, passed 8 income tax assessment orders, 6 excess profits tax assessment orders and two business profits tax assessment orders each in regard to 1/8 of the total sum companycealed.
Against this order the appellant applied to this companyrt for special leave but on September 28, 1953, leave was refused.
As there were 16 assessment orders the appellant was asked by the Commissioner to submit 16 applications which he did but by an order dated October 3, 1951, he rejected the applications as in his opinion numberquestion of law arose out of the various assessment orders.
On March 23, 1949, the Commission made a report to the Central Government under section 5 4 of the Act asking for reference to it self of the case of Captain N. N. Dutta.
On April 15, 1950, the appellant applied to the Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, under section 8 5 of the Act for a reference to the High Court of Calcutta of 15 questions of law which ultimately were reduced to three.
Almost simultaneously the Commission directed a search to be made of four premises belonging to or in the occupation of Captain N. N. Dutta and his relations as a result of which companyplete sets of books companytaining receipts and disbursements of secret profits made by Captain N. N. Dutta came into the possession of the Commission and thus the case of Captain N. N. Dutta came to be investigated after reference to the Commission by the Central Government.
This was recommended by the Commission who in their report stated that the settlement was for the purpose of recovery and was only with regard to Kamini Kumar Dutta and his sons and daughters in law but was number made with the appellant.
332A. Captain N. N. Dutta at the time of search was away from Calcutta and after his return he offered to make full disclosure and agreed to pay whatever tax the Commission would find due from him but a few days after this offer i.e., on April 6, 1949, he died leaving brothers, nephews and nieces who are shown in the following pedigree table Krishna Kumar Dutta XiXCD Kamini Kumar Surendra Nath Narendra Nath Debendra Nath Mrinalini long dead Captain Dutta Charunalini Dutta Widow Saroj Ajit Kumar Ranjit Kumar Sujit Maya Bela m. Nalima Kumar Latika Renukana Kumar m.captain A.N.Bose m.Dr.A. Kalyani Wife wife A.N.Dutta N.Bose Wife Kamini Kumar Dutta was his elder brother and the appellant Debendra Nath Dutta the younger brother.
They also recommended a companycession in regard to Kamini Kumar Dutta and his branch of the family.
The amount to be recovered from that branch came to Rs.
58,24,023 and this was accepted to be companycealed income both by Kamini Kumar Dutta and the appellant.
29,74,480.
The assessees in all these orders were both the brothers of the deceased, i.e., Kamini Kumar Dutta and the appellant.
58,24,023, whether in the first instance or so much of it as may number be recovered from the other branch.
Kapur, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the report of the Income tax Investigation Commission Made in R.C. No.
The other order was passed on November 21, 1949, accepting the terms and companyditions of settlement offered by the branch of Kamini Kumar Dutta it directed that demand numberices be served by the Income tax Officer under section 29 of the Income tax Act and all proceedings under the Income tax Act or any other Act which might be necessary be taken.
Thereupon the Central Government passed two orders, one under section 8A of the Act on November 19, 1949, directing that appropriate proceedings under the Indian Income tax Act and Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, be taken against Kamini Kumar Dutta and the appellant, heirs of the deceased, with a view to assess or reassess the aggregate income of Rs.
The Commission in its report made it quite clear that the appellant was numberparty to this companyposition and numberorder was being made against or in regard to him but should any assets of the deceased be found to be in his possession or may subsequently companye into his possession as a result of the litigation which he was threatening to companymence or otherwise, the Government would be entitled to recover from him the full tax on the companycealed income, i.e., on Rs.
He was informed of the amount which was found to be companycealed income and was invited to examine the materials and make such submissions as he thought necessary in regard to that amount.
On the death of Captain N. N. Dutta his two brothers Kamini Kumar Dutta and the appellant Debendra Nath Dutta were brought on record as legal representatives.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are that Captain N. N. Dutta, a brother of the appellant was the managing director of a companycern called the Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. During the last war he made large profits which were neither disclosed to number detected by the Income tax Department and thus escaped income tax on what may be termed companycealed income.
These profits were invested in Government securities and bank Deposits.
This case was R.C. No.
The deceased himself was unmarried.
They recommended that for the purpose of assessment to the tax the total companycealed income should be allocated between the 8 accounting years in equal amounts.
The appellant then applied to the High Court of Calcutta under section 8 5 of the Act read with section 66 2 of the Income tax Act and rules were issued by the High Court but on March 3, 1952, they were discharged.
