9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rilal was not shown, relying on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) for the assessment year 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer, while framing the income-tax assessments, included the share income which Savitaben had received from Messrs. Pari Chimanlal Harilal in the total income of the assessee in each of the years under reference. He, however, did not include the interest received by Savitaben from the said firm in the assessee's total income. After the income-tax assessments were completed, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the "Act" for short), seeking to reopen the income-tax assessments for the years under reference. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest income received by Savitaben from the firm as part of the income of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer had, in the assessments framed against the assessee, included the share income received by Savitaben in the assessee's total income. The assessee had not included the interest income received by Savitaben from the firm relying on the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1960-61. In the light of the above facts, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee had disclosed all the primary facts in the course of the original assessment proceedings. He further held that the Income-tax Officer had not relied on any new information or fact apart from the facts which were before him in the original assessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder reference, the assessee had included in his total income the share income received by his wife, Savitaben, from the firm of Messrs. Pari Chimanlal Harilal and not included the interest income received by her from the said firm, stating in the note appended to the returns that such interest income was not included in his total income in view of the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1960-61. It would thus appear that (i) the assessee had included Savitaben's share income from the firm in his total income; and (ii) he had not included the interest income received by Savitaben from the said firm. The assessee had declared that Savitaben had received both the share income and the interest income from the firm. In other words, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
