9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit was also to go to Shri Satyanarain, a minor son of the assessee. The assessee initially filed a return for the first year declaring an income of Rs. 5,005 and assessment was completed accordingly. Thereafter ITO realised that the share income of his minor son was liable to be included in his income and, therefore, he issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In response thereto, the assessee filed a return showing nearly the same income and claiming status as karta of HUF. The status as karta was denied to the assessee and he was assessed in his individual capacity. 25 per cent profit in respect of Shri Satyanarain, minor son of the assessee, was added to his income which was computed at Rs. 10,607. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be added to his total income and, therefore, it was not disclosed in his returns. Incidentally it was also contended that there was no concealment because the ITO was already assessing the firm of which the assessee is a partner and a share of the profits in the firm was given to the minor so that all the facts were fully known to the ITO at the time of original assessment and he had accepted the assessee's version as such. A number of authorities were cited for the proposition that in these circumstances bona fide belief of the assessee should be considered to be sufficient to exonerate him from liability to penalty. I have gone carefully through all the facts and circumstances of this case and the various authorities quoted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be branded as a false return, but bona fide belief may exonerate the assessee. The question of leaving any column unfilled was not involved in the matter and the only fault of the assessee was to exclude from its return of turnover, the amount of freight which the assessee bona fide again the Patna High Court was of believed was not a part thereof. In CIT v. P. A. Patel [1981] 127 ITR 390 the opinion that an assessee was not bound to disclose the income of his wife during the relevant assessment years which were 1962-63 and 1963-64, therefore, there could not be said to be any concealment. In the case of Tek Chand Pannalal v. ITO [1982] Tax World (Section 4) 277, the assessee had sold immovable property for Rs. 23,500 but no capital g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntain any column for showing the income of the spouse and minor child which was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under section 64, sub-section (1), clauses (i) and (iii), and there was, therefore, no obligation on the assessee to disclose this income in the returns filed by her. This contention is also, in our opinion, fallacious and deserves to be rejected. It is true that the form of the return prescribe by the Rule 12, which was in force during the relevant assessment year did not contain any separate column for showing the income of the spouse and minor child liable to be included in the total income of the assessee, but it did contain a note stating that if income of any other person is includible in the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (1), clause (c). It is obvious that on this view the order imposing penalty on the assessee would have to be sustained but there is a decision of this court in V. D. M. RM. M. RM. Muthiah Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 183 (SC), which is binding upon us and where we find that a different view has been taken by a Bench of three Judges of this Court. It was held in this case that even if there were any printed instructions in the form of the return requiring the assessee to disclose the income received by his wife and minor child from a firm of which the assessee was a partner, there was, in the absence in the return of any head under which the income of the wife or minor child could be shown, no obligation on the assessee to disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it stood before 1-4-1976. There is another important aspect of the matter when the ITO issued a notice under section 148 the assessee filed a return claiming an HUF status. The reason for claiming this status can easily be imagined. If the assessee was an HUF section 64 may have no application for it. It was for this reason that the assessee claimed this status and this facts completely proves the earlier mala fides of the assessee that the omission to include the income of his minor son was not accidental; it was intentional. It needs to be pointed out that in the subsequent proceedings the assessee conceded that the status was not that of an HUF and the partnership deed clearly mentions that the HUF had clearly been disrupted and that wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
