1975 (11) TMI 41 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 for direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer questions of law.
2. Obligation of the assessee to disclose income from dividends on shares in the names of wife and minor son in the return of income.
3. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Tribunal's decision on non-disclosure of dividend income and cash credits.
5. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions in Anwar Ali's case and other relevant case laws.

Analysis:

1. The High Court addressed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, where the revenue sought a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer questions of law for the court's opinion. The questions pertained to the obligation of the assessee to disclose income from dividends on shares in the names of his wife and minor son, and the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had imposed a penalty on the assessee for concealment of income, including dividends on shares held by the wife and minor son. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not obligated to disclose such income in the return. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws, including the decision in Radheshyam Ladia v. Income-tax Officer, to support its conclusion that the assessee was not required to disclose such incomes under section 64 of the Income-tax Act.

3. The Tribunal also found that the penalty on cash credits was not sustainable as the department failed to prove that the amount represented income of the assessee and was concealed. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Anwar Ali's case to support its decision on the penalty for cash credits.

4. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the applicability of Supreme Court decisions in similar cases. The court held that the assessee was not required to disclose the income from dividends on shares held by the wife and minor son. The court also noted that the question raised did not cover all items of income leading to the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

5. In conclusion, the High Court rejected the revenue's application, stating it was groundless. The court highlighted the support for the assessee's position based on relevant case laws and the Tribunal's decision. Both judges, R. N. Misra and K. B. Panda, concurred with the decision, and no costs were awarded in the matter.