1983 (9) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Proper service of notice on the respondents, Assessment of income under Portuguese Civil Code

Proper Service of Notice on the Respondents:
The court found that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee and raised concerns about the proper service of notice on the respondents. The notice of the reference application was handed over to the Sheriff of Bombay, but doubts were raised regarding the adequacy of the address provided for the assessee. The court highlighted the importance of providing a detailed address to ensure proper service, as a vague address like "Mr. and Mrs. Valentino F. Pinto Mapuca, Goa" may not be sufficient for effective communication. Despite these concerns, the court decided not to dispose of the reference solely on the ground of improper service, emphasizing the need for a specific and detailed address for future notices to be served effectively.

Assessment of Income Under Portuguese Civil Code:
The court referred to previous judgments, including CIT v. Purushotam Gangadhar Bhende and CGT v. Aleixo P. Velho, to address the questions regarding the assessment of income under the Portuguese Civil Code. The court noted that in Purushotam Gangadhar Bhende's case, it was established that income from the property of the communion of husband and wife should be assessed separately in equal shares in the hands of each spouse, rather than as a collective entity. This principle was deemed applicable to various types of income, not limited to house property. Consequently, the court answered the questions in favor of the assessee, affirming that income accruing to husband and wife governed by the Portuguese Civil Code during their 'coverture' should be assessed equally and separately in the individual hands of each spouse.

In conclusion, the court's judgment addressed concerns regarding proper service of notice on the respondents and clarified the assessment of income under the Portuguese Civil Code based on established legal principles from previous cases. The court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, emphasizing the importance of proper address details for effective communication and consistent application of legal principles in income assessment matters.