9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriving income by way of salary as managing director of the company, Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. The original assessment for the year 1970-71 was completed on May 30, 1972, and for the year 1972-73 was completed on October 19, 1972. When the relevant returns were submitted, the assessee was a partner of the firm, Anand Water Metre Manufacturing Co., Kapurthala, as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. His wife, Smt. Sheela Rani Anand, was also a partner of the said firm and both the Hindu undivided family and Smt. Sheela Rani Anand were assessed to income-tax at Jullundur. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1972-73, the share income of the assessee's wife was not included in the individual assessment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als against the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the two years in question which were dismissed by the Tribunal. After adverting to the decisions reported in Madho Prasad v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492 (All), Addl. CIT v. Yashwant La[1979] 119 ITR 18 (All), CIT v. Sanka Sankaraiah [1978] 113 ITR 313 (AP) and CIT v. Anand Sarup [1980] 121 ITR 873 (P H), the Tribunal held that in view of the conflicting views on the interpretation of section 64(1), the assessee did not have the obligation to declare the income of his wife in the return of income originally filed and the failure to disclose the income in the circumstances did not amount to omission or failure on the part of the assessee in order to give jurisdiction to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. In the case in question, there is no omission or failure to make any return. The only case is that the assessee omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that year. The question whether the share income of the assessee's wife should be included in the total income of the assessee who had been a partner of the firm only as the representative of a Hindu undivided family is a debatable one and has not been settled. There are a large number of decisions which say that the assessee need not include such income, viz., Prayag Dass Rajgarhia v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 291 (Delhi), CIT v. Shiv Parsad [1984] 146 ITR 397 (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
