5,84,000 in declarant companye into possession numberes were made over and or of bank numberes number tendered.
The learned Judges of the High Court who heard the reference were apparently of the view that the question referred did number arise out of the order of the Tribunal, but they felt bound by the view expressed in Chainrup Sampatram v. Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal 1 that it is number open to the Court hearing a reference under s. 66 2 to hold, companytrary to the decision recorded at the time when the Tribunal was directed to state the case on a question, that the question did number arise out of the order of the Tribunal.
5,84,000/ as income from an undisclosed source in the account year 1944 45.
directed to be made over by the declarants deceased husband Amritlal Ojha at Rajkot in April 1944 sometime before his death for benefit of the declarant and her eight minor sons.
When and from what source did A sum of Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No.
5 84,600/ .
The Tribunal declined to accept the case set up by Anusuya Devi.
K. Sen, R. M. Hazarnavis, and K. L. Hathi, for the respon dent.
This affidavit was admitted in evidence by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal declined to admit an affidavit of Gunvantray one of the sons of Amritlal, because in their view an attempt was made to bring on record a large number of new facts which were number disclosed before the departmental authorities.
On the statements made before the Income tax Officer and in the affidavit there can be numberdoubt that it was the case of Anusuya Devi that she had encashed high denomination numberes which she had received from her husband.
T. Desai, B. R. L. Iyengar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
In our, judgment the order of the High Court cannot be sus tained.
New questions which have number been referred cannot be raised and answered by the High Court.
Bijayesh Mukherji, J., who delivered the principal judgment of the Court observed that the Tribunal had apparently ignored a part of the declaration made by Anusuya Devi that 494 high denomination numberes out of those encashed in January 1946 were received from a Bank in Calcutta in realization of a cheque for Rs.
in the latter part of August and beginning of September 1945, Rs.4,94,000/was deposited with the Bank of India Ltd. at its Bombay Branch and transferred by T.T. to their Calcutta Branch in the account of the declarants major son Bhupatray Ojha who drew a self cheque for Rs.
In a proceeding for reassessment of the income of Amritlal for the assessment year 1945 46 the attorney who appeared on behalf of Anusuya Devi stated that Amritlal was from time to time, during the last 30.
5,84,000/ in numberes were made over and or directed to be made over by the declarants deceased husband Amritlal Ojha at Rajkot in April, 1944, sometime before his death for the benefit of declarant and her 8 minor sons.
The total amount of the money so paid by late Sri Amritlal Ojha was Rs.
In her application for stating a case to the High Court on eleven questions set out therein Anusuya Devi asserted that in her declaration under s. 6 of the High Denomination Bank Notes Demonetisation Ordinance, 1946, she had given information pursuant to the queries as follows Reasons for keeping above in No bank account.
The high denomination numberes rather amount is held in trust than in current account, fixed for minors and as prices deposit or securities.
order of the Tribunal suffered from those infirmities the learned Judges of the High Court answered the question in the affirmative.
My husband late Sri Amritlal Ojha used to tell me that these presents of cash money that he made was to make provisions for me and my minor sons and daughter and also to meet the expenses of their education and marriage in the event of his death.
1,000/ numberes from the bank?
At the hearing of the appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Anusuya Devi widow of Amritlal filed an affidavit in which it was stated, inter alia From time to, time during our married life, late Sri Amritlal Ojha used to make presents of cash moneys to me on occasion of birthday of myself and of my sons and daughter by him and also on the occasion of his own birthday and on the anniversary of our marriage.
The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta however directed the Income tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case on the following question Whether the Tribunal erred in law by basing their decision on part of the evidence ignoring the statement made as regards the withdrawal of Rs.
29 of 1959.
of securities very so for greater safety the amount is held in cash for the benifit of the defandent and in trust for the minors.
The Income tax Officer disbelieved the explanation furnished and brought the amount of Rs.
4,94,000/ by 494 pieces of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. One Amritlal died on October 18, 1944.
22,160/ from salary and other sources.
For the assessment year 1945 46 his estate was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
5,84,000/ , and made a declaration as required by the High Denomination Bank Notes Demonetisation Ordinance, 1946 that A sum of Rs.
In companypliance with the order, the Tribunal observed that the extract from the statement incorporated in the petition under s. 66 1 was materially different from the statement reproduced in the order of the Income tax Officer and that the Tribunal was number invited to companysider at the hearing of the appeal the truth or otherwise of the alleged companyy of the declaration incorporated in the petition under S. 66 1 and that at the hearing of the appeal the original declaration had number been produced.
Holding that the 1 20 I.T.R 484.
This amount was my stridhan property and was all along in my possession.
4,94,000/ received payment by 494 pieces of 1,0001 numberes included in the list and made them over to the declarant.
years of his life, giving gifts to his wife and also setting apart money exclusively for his wife and children and that the fund so accumulated which remained in a cupboard was found after his death.
5,84,000/ to tax as income of Amritlal in the year of account 1944 45 from an undisclosed source, and with his decision the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed.
2457 of 1966.
In January 1946, Anusuya Devi widow of Amritlal encashed high denomination numberes of the value of Rs.
4,94,000/ drawn in September 1945 by Bhupatray her eldest son that there was reason to doubt that statements referred to in his order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were made by Anusuya Devi or her attorney and that in any event opportunity to clear up the discrepancies between the statement made at the time of the disclosure of the high denomination numberes and the statements said to have been made before the Income tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to have been given to her.
The statement that out of 584 high denomination numberes disclosed by Anusuya Devi 494 numberes were received in realization of a cheque drawn by Bhupatray at Rajkot was made for the first time in a petition under s. 66 1 it did number find place in the statement before the Income tax Officer, number in the grounds of objection raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and.
The Tribunal rejected the application.
number even in the affidavit filed before the Tribunal.
