I have numberobjection to their producing all those records before you.
Description of the appellant as Private Secretary of Sita Devi in a stray cash memo issued by a third party about the source of whose knowledge there is number an iota of evidence, companyld number evidence a relationship of master and servant much less companyld it prove that what was given by Sita Devi to the appellant was remuneration for service rendered.
On December 26, 1954, the appellant was examined on oath before the Income tax Officer.
The appellant has appealed to this Court against the order of the High Court recording answers in the two references.
96,600/ and for the year 1951 52 at Rs.
In fact I desire that they should be so A companyplete inventory of records with my auditor will be given to you on Monday and you may look into them.
As to companyrespondence I have very few letters but such of them as I have companytain matters relating to others.
I shall produce them if you are prepared to exclude those portions.
The Tribunal submitted two companysolidated statements of case one in respect of the assessment years 1946 47 and 1951 52 and the other in respect of the years 1947 48 and 1950 51 and submitted in each of the statements the following question Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case what the assessee received in the relevant years is assessable to tax and whether Section 34 of the Income Tax Act companyld be invoked in regard to the years 1947 48, 1948 49 and 1950 51 ?
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 13, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 13, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No.
I can give full particulars for all deposits in my accounts.
The High Court held that there was evidence before the Tribunal to support the finding that the appellant was an employee of Sita Devi and that the cash, cheques and jewellery admitted as received by the appellant were number given to her as gifts made out of love and affection, but as remuneration for services rendered.
30,000/ .
Reference to the year 1948 49 in the question is due to oversight as numberreference was asked for and numbere was made in respect of that year.
He accordingly issued a numberice under S. 34 of the Income tax Act and called upon the appellant to submit an explanation adducing all documentary and other evidence in her possession relating to the receipt of assets admitted by her in her statement dated August 26, 1949 and relating to other cash amounts and cheques received by her between August 25, 1948 and October 23, 1952 and to other assets possessed by the appellant and disclosed by her in her wealth statement.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos, 199, 200 of 1964.
20,000/ and directed companysequential modifications in that order.
AND Civil Appeals Nos.
11 of 1960.
201 and 202 of 1964.
12 of 1960.
All my jewels are gifted by Srimati Seetha Devi.
It is number necessary to companysider whether the Income tax Officer was companypetent to issue a numberice under s. 34 of the Income tax Act for the years 1947 48 and 1950 51, for in our view the property received by the appellant was number remuneration given to her by Sita Devi for services rendered or to be rendered by her.
By her statement, dated November 27, 1953, the appellant submitted a detailed explanation about the items referred to in the letter of the Income tax Officer and claimed that income received by her was earned with the aid of property which Sita Devi and the Yuvarani of Pithapuram had given to her out of love and affection from time to time.
For the year 1946 47 he determined the escaped income of the appellant at Rs.
In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income tax Officer that the receipts were income taxable under the Income tax Act, but he valued the jewellery received by the appellant in the account year companyresponding to the assessment year 1946 47 at Rs.
4,00,000/ being the value of jewellery and Rs.
2,50,000/ , for the year 1950 51 at Rs.
He determined the escaped income for the year 1947 48 at Rs.
4,70,000/ Rs.
I have filed a statement for that.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Income tax Officer was justified in reopening the assess ment under s. 34, and that cash, cheques and jewellery received by the appellant from Sita Devi in the previous year companyresponding to the assessment years 1946 47, 1947 48, 1950 51 and 1951 52 being remuneration for services rendered, were taxable.
Description of the appellant in the cash memo issued by the Bombay Garage Ltd. as Private Secretary to Princess Sita Devi companyld have numberevidentiary value.
70,000/ cash .
5,20,000/ .
In respect of income from property and business she submitted a return of her income for the assessment year 1947 48 and disclosed in a statement, dated August 26, 1949, that Situ Devi Maharani of Baroda had between November 10, 1945 and February 11, 1948 out of natural love and affection given to her some jewellery and four amounts of money which aggregated to Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant carried on business at Nuzvid as a moneylender and companyducted a cinematography theatre.
D. Karkharnis and R. N. Sachthey for the respondent in a the appeals .
She stated The credits in my accounts are all out of gifts.
In the reference relating to the years 1947 48 and 1950 51 the High Court called for a supplementary statement, for determination of the question whether action under s. 34 was justifiable.
A. Palkhiwala and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant in all the appeals .
The Income tax Officer by his order, dated March 31, 1956, held that the gifts made by Sita Devi were remuneration for services rendered by the appellant as a maid servant or Secretary to the Princess and were accordingly taxable as income in her hands.
In the companyrse of assessment proceedings for the year 1951 52 the Income tax Officer was inclined to treat the money and jewellery given to the appellant as remuneration for services rendered to Sita Devi as a maid servant.
The Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Vijayawada, accepted the appellants statement and did number treat the money and jewellery received by her as taxable income.
What other record I have I gave to my auditors.
