1970 (8) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Failure to disclose income of the wife - reopening of the assessment - though if the case of the department was that the wife was a mere benamidar no question of application of section 64 would arise - records showed that approval for the notice of reassessment was obtained on the ground that the wife s income was to be clubbed with that of the husband under section 64 - notice under section 148 is quashed and the respondents are prohibited from taking any further steps in respect of the aforesaid notice

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment for the assessment year 1960-61 under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Challenge to the notice under section 148 on the grounds of failure to disclose income accruing to the petitioner's wife under section 64.
3. Interpretation of applicable legal provisions regarding disclosure of income and reassessment.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta, in the judgment delivered by Justice K. L. Roy, addressed the issue of reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1960-61 under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's wife had purportedly invested Rs. 35,000 in a partnership firm, and the Income-tax Officer questioned this investment, suspecting it to be benami. The respondent-Income-tax Officer sought to reassess the petitioner's income for 1960-61, alleging that the wife was a benamidar and the income should be taxed in the petitioner's hands under section 64 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the notice under section 148, arguing that there was no obligation to disclose the wife's income under section 64, citing a Supreme Court decision regarding disclosure obligations under similar provisions of the Act of 1922.

The petitioner contended that as the wife was merely a benamidar, the income belonged to the petitioner, and therefore, section 64 did not apply. The respondent-Income-tax Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment included the clubbing of the wife's income in the petitioner's hands under section 64(3). However, the absence of recorded reasons for reopening the assessment led the Court to conclude that the notice under section 148 was not authorized by law. Justice K. L. Roy held that since the wife was found to be a benamidar and the income belonged to the petitioner, the impugned notice was not permissible under section 147(a) and must be struck down.

Consequently, the Court made the rule absolute, quashing the notice under section 148 and prohibiting the respondents from taking further steps in this regard. The judgment also stated that there would be no order as to costs and that the operation of the order would be stayed for a specified period. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of recorded reasons for reopening assessments under the Income-tax Act.