9911796707
TMI Blog1939 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of maintenance allowance paid under a decree of a High Court to certain female members of the Hindu family to which he belongs. The learned Commissioner answered the first question in the affirmative, and the second in the negative. So far as the first question is concerned, the facts are that the assessee was assessed for the year 1936-37 on the 1st of July 1936, the assessment being based on the income of the preceding year, which expired on the 31st of March 1936. Then, in February 1937, there was a supplemental assessment, because it was found that the income of a house had been omitted from the original assessment, and the final assessment was at a sum of ₹ 1,67,260 which was duly paid. That assessment was based on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 34 are very wide and say that if for any reason the assessment is too low . I think those words are wide enough to cover such a mistake as existed in the present case, and I see no reason, therefore, why a fresh assessment should not be made under Section 34. It is suggested by Sir Jamshedji Kanga for the assessee that the assessment to income-tax had become final and conclusive for the purposes of income-tax by payment of the tax and, therefore, under Section 56 it was also final and conclusive for the purposes of super-tax. But the fallacy of that argument lies in saying that the assessment had become final and conclusive for the purposes of income-tax, because the assessment might have been corrected under Section 34 in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is sort do not fall within the language of Section 9. But in my opinion, the answer to the learned Commissioner's view is to be found in the decision of the Privy Council in Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta. Their Lordships there were dealing with a very similar case, in which the assessee's income, derivable in part from immoveable property, was subject to charges in favour of a widow, and their Lordships held that although those charges could not be deducted under Section 9, the question really was whether the income of the assessee was the whole income of the immovable property, or the income of the immovable property less the deduction, and they held that the real income, which was liable to tax, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
