9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Tribunal in not having discussed the important materials in the case." The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner and his two sons were members of a Hindu undivided family of which he was the kartha. The family separated on the 12th March, 1945. At the time of partition a sum of ₹ 10,500 alone was kept in charge of the petitioner though it was not clearly stated for what purpose it was earmarked. On the 21st January, 1946, the petitioner's son Narayan Prasad Misra encashed high denomination notes of the value of ₹ 85,000 at Sambalpur treasury after making a declaration to the effect that that sum represented the sale proceeds, including profits, of Bidi leaf business carried on by the joint family consist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of the joint family during the previous years, and to that they added another sum of ₹ 10,000 presumably for the marriage expenses of the petitioner's daughter. They accordingly exempted a total sum of ₹ 30,000 from the sum of ₹ 85,000 and directed that a sum of ₹ 55,000 alone should be held to be unaccounted income for the year in question and as such liable to assessment. They refused to state a case and when the dispute was taken up before a Division Bench of this court, that Bench thought that the Tribunal committed a serious error of record by omitting to take note of the fact that for the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46 of the Hindu undivided family an assessment of ₹ 78,000 had actually be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 78,000. This fact was known to the Tribunal on the 6th September, 1953. It also appears that a substantial portion of this tax had been actually paid by the assessee. The Tribunal should, therefore, have considered these two important pieces of evidence, before finally deciding to deduct a substantial sum from ₹ 85,000 as having been set apart for payment of income-tax by the undivided family, at the time of partition. By their omission to do so the Tribunal has committed an error of law. We now understand that the assessments of the Hindu undivided family for the relevant periods were taken up before the Tribunal and ultimately, on the 13th December, 1955, the total income-tax payable by the family for the years 1944-45 and 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
