9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survived by the following heirs whose relationship with the deceased is mentioned there against (1) Mrs. Shardaben B. Mafatlal (another) (2) Mrs. Pannaben H. Mafatlal (widow) (3) Master Miheer H. Mafatlal (minor son) (4) Miss Radhika H. Mafatlal (minor daughter) (5) Miss Shalini H. Mafatlal The estate of Shri H. B. Mafatlal is under administration and the estate is filing its return of income and wealth separately to the, Income-tax Officer, A-V Ward, Bombay. In the meantime, i.e., pending administration of the estate, my share, of income, if any, in the estate, is not liable to be taxed in my assessment." Each of the petitioners was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1972-73 without taking into account the one- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, there had been escapement of income. From the primary facts, in his possession, the Income-tax Officer has to draw inferences as regards certain other facts and ultimately, from the primary facts and the further facts inferred from them, he has to draw the proper legal inference. (CIT v. Hemchandra Kar [1970] 77 ITR 1 (SC). It was submitted by Mr. Devadhar, learned advocate for the respondents, that particulars of the share of the petitioners in the estate of the late Hemant and the quantum thereof, even approximately, had not been disclosed in the petitioners' returns. The disclosure made by the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration of the estate, the petitioners' share in the income of the estate was not liable to be taxed in their assessments. The Income-tax Officer in passing the original assessment orders accepted the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Several years later, the Income-tax Officer appears to have concluded that the legal position was that the petitioners were liable to assessment on their share in the income of the estate. A change of opinion is no ground for reopening an assessment. It cannot be held that the petitioners had failed to disclose all primary or material facts relevant for the purposes of making the assessments. They had clearly stated in their returns that each of them was heir to and entitled to a share in the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
