9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for each of the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 ? " The statement of case reveals that the assessee is an HUF. The assessment for the year 1964-65 was originally completed on 18th February, 1965, determining the taxable expenditure to be Rs. 60,731. For the assessment year 1965-66, the original assessment was completed on 15th September, 1965, determining the taxable expenditure to be Rs. 53,873. A notice under s. 16 of the Act was issued to the assessee on the ground that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to include certain expenditure incurred out of the assets of the assessee-family which were held in the names of the members of the family. Addition in the year 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e expenditure was incurred was derived from shares exclusively owned by Master Tilak Kumar. Regarding the remaining items, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AAC for a fresh consideration of the matter. Before us it has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is virtually concluded by the judgment in L. Bansi Dhar & Sons v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 58, in which a Bench of this court has considered the income-tax reference arising out of the income-tax assessment of the assessee-family. We have carefully examined the circumstances of the case, and find that the contention of the learned counsel is sound. The facts and circumstances of the present case are explained in the order of the AAC dated 3rd May, 1969. It app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expenditure is also individual expenditure. In deciding the reference, this court held in L. Bansi Dhar Sons v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 58, that the amount of Rs. 2,49,874 received from the insurance company, M/s. London and Lancashire Insurance Company Ltd., by L. Bansi Dhar was his individual property and consequently the income from the investment of the said amount was also of the same character and was not the property of the HUF. It would follow that the expenditure incurred out of the said income by L. Bansi Dhar would also not be assessable as expenditure incurred by the assessee-family. Similarly, it was held by the Bench that shares acquired in the name of Master Tilak Kumar in M/s. B.R.C.R. Private Ltd., and shares acquired in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
