He had two uncles then, Phirozeshaw and Kaikhusroo.
Kaikhusroo, younger brother of Phirozeshaw and one of the executors of his will, took charge of the estate of Phirozeshaw.
On his mothers death the appellants share of the estate was Rs.
By an order dated December 3, 1956, this Court granted Special Leave to Appeal to this Court from the order of the Bombay High Court dated October 4, 1956, but made numberorder at that stage on the petition for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Tribunal dated October 7, 1955, and March 8, 1956.
The uncle had already departed for his eternal home.
The affidavit dated 29 9 1949 tells another story, viz.,
September 22.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
When the appellant received a numberice from the Income tax Officer to submit a return of his income for the relevant year, he submitted a return showing nil income.
The appellant then filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
We do number companysider that the circumstances referred to by the Tribunal in companynection with Bai Aloos statement were irrelevant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 4, 1956, of the former Bombay High Court in I.T.A. No.
What the Tribunal had to companysider was the companyrectness or otherwise of a story in which the mother was stated to have left Rs.
Assessees letter dated 7 1 1947 says that the uncle Phirozeshaw handed over money to me and my father before his death.
The appellant then moved the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law to the High Court, which questions according to the appellant arose out of the Tribunals order.
I did number companynt the Dotes or verify the companytents.
When asked about the high denomination numberes which he had uncashed, he said in a letter dated January 7, 1947, that his uncle Phirozeshaw who used to manage his estate during his minority handed over to him and his father the sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. For the assessment year 1946 47 the appellant Homi Jehangir Gheesta was assessed to income tax on a total income of Rs.
The father was actually examined later and his statements were taken into companysideration.
That authority came to the same companyclusion as the Income tax Officer had companye to.
Some of the answers given as to receipts and inventory by the executor Kaikhusroo show that he did number take even the reasonable precautions that an ordinary person would take, number to talk of an executor.
The Tribunal pointed out the following important discrepancies in the case sought to be made out by the appellant Declaration dated 24 1 1946 by the assessee says that mothers legacy was invested by my father and my late uncle Phirozeshaw .
The assessee son numberhere refers to any packet .
87,500 under s. 23 3 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
When he opened a safe belonging to Phirozeshaw he found a packet with the name of the appellant on it.
In another part of the said affidavit it is said that the said executor handed over money to assessees father.
At the appellate stage the statements of the appellants father and uncle were taken by the Income tax Officer, D 11 Ward, Bombay, and a further statement of the appellants uncle Kaikhusroo was taken by the appellate authority.
The father failed to companyply with the summons.
87,500.
The appellant also filed an affidavit before the Income tax Officer on September 29, 1949, which also companytained companytradictory statements.
Indeed, the theory of packet was pronounced by the Executor Kaikhusroo only when he appeared before the Income tax Officer on 22 2 1952.
The present appeal has been filed pursuant to the special leave granted by this Court.
87,500.
The affidavit assures us that the declaration regarding high denomination numberes was made on the information given him by his father.
The appellants case was that M. H. Sanjana, maternal grand father of the appellant, died on or about May 10, 1920.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that it was number a relevant companysideration as to why Phirozeshaw did number hand over the money to Bai Aloo in 1939 or in 1944, and if Bai Aloos statements were to be taken into companysideration, they were in favour of the appellant in as much as numberassessment was made on Bai Aloo in respect of the sum she had received.
Bai Jerbanoo was the appellants mother.
The circumstances in which he was so assessed were the following.
J. Kolah, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax.
24 of 1958.
On a companysideration of all the materials before him, the Income tax Officer did number accept the case of the appellant but came to the companyclusion that the true nature of the receipt of Rs.
87,500 was number disclosed.
2,10,000 when she died.
It was stated, though there was numberevidence thereof, that Bai Jerbanoo left an estate worth about Rs.
87,500 sometime before his i. e., Phirozeshaws death in 1945.
9,88,000.
There was litigation between his widow Cursetbai and Bai Jerbanoo, Sanjanas daughter by his first wife, about the validity of a will left by Sanjana.
85,000 from her uncle Phirozeshaw before the latters death.
The Tribunal held that numberquestion of law arose out of its order dated October 7, 1955, and by its order dated March 8, 1956, dismissed the application of the appellant for a reference under s. 66 of the Income tax Act, 1922.
Then there was an appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, which again reviewed the facts of the case.
Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner H. Range, the same Mr. Kaikhusroo later on said I handed over the packets as they were.
87,500 1 took charge of this money and handed over the money to Homi.
The appellant unsuccessfully moved the Bombay High Court by means of a petition under s. 66 2 .
That packet companytained high denomination currency numberes of the value of Rs.
On January 24, 1946, the appellant tendered those numberes for encashment and made a declaration which was then necessary and in the declaration he said Legacy from my mother who died in 1933 when I was minor and money whereof was invested from time to time by my father and late uncle Phirozeshaw who recently died.
He treated the amount as appellants income from some source number disclosed and assessed him accordingly.
The object of this variation is obviously to shield his father from inconvenient examination.
She further stated that she also submitted a return to the Income tax Officer but was number subjected to any assessment on the sum received.
The litigation was companypromised and the appellants mother got one third share in the estate left by Sanjana the total value of which estate was about Rs.
This was a story different from the one later given, about the opening of the safe by Kaikhusroo after Phirozeshaws death and the finding of a packet there in the name of the appellant.
Bai Jerbanoo died in 1933, leaving her husband Jehangirji appellants father , her son Homi appellant and a daughter named Aloo.
70,000.
In his statement dated 22 2 1952 Mr. Kaikhusroo says that he found an envelope companytaining Rs.
49 of 1956.
Phirozeshaw took charge of it and made investments.
the executor Kaikhusroo handed over money to the assessee after Phirozeshaws death.
The appellant was a minor at the time of his mothers death.
He died on December 12, 1945.
Phirozeshaw was the eldest member of the family.
