9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be taken as one-half. The accountable person filed a reply on 23rd February, 1963, and pointed out that her husband's share would only be one-fourth. The Assistant Controller examined the matter and upheld the contention of the accountable person. On scrutiny later, the Assistant Controller found that on a correct view of Hindu law the share of the deceased in the coparcenary properties would be half. He issued notice to the accountable person under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act for reopening the proceedings. The accountable person filed a reply stating that there was no new information in the possession of the Assistant Controller and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under clause (b) of section 59. The Assistant Controller repelled the preliminary objection. He held that according to Hindu law the correct share of the deceased in the bigger Hindu undivided family would be one-half and not one-fourth. He further held that in this case the correct position of law came to the notice of the Assistant Controller subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and information, that is, the correct position of law so known led to the belie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... | Kr. Kanhaiya Lal | | Smt. Sarla Devi | (widow) | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Shri Kunji Lal Shri Moti Lal Shri Darshan Lal | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Shri Prem H. H. Lal Shri Bhaw H. H. Lal Shri Jai H. H. Lal The Assistant Controller took the view that the deceased Kanhaiya Lal was the sole surviving coparcener of his branch of the Hindu undivided family. He called upon the accountable person to show cause why the deceased's share in the undivided coparcenary properties be not taken at one-half as against one-fourth declared by the accountable person because the whole of his property including the coparcenary property will pass to his heirs by succession : vide Mulla's Hindu Law, 12th edition, paragraphs 257 and 34(2)(ii), which for estate duty purposes passed under section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The accountable person filed a reply pointing out that the deceased was not the sole coparcener of the Hindu undivided family as no complete partition of the assets of the big ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arcener in his branch of the Hindu undivided family his entire share passed to his heirs by succession : vide Mulla's Hindu Law, 12th edition, sections 257 and 34(2)(ii). In paragraph 257 aforesaid it has been provided that a person, who for the time being is the sole surviving coparcener, is entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property. Under paragraph 34(2)(ii) it has been laid down that if the deceased was at the time of his death the sole surviving member of a coparcenary, the whole of his property, including the coparcenary property, will pass to his heirs by succession. The accountable person, however, satisfied the Assistant Controller that the deceased was not the sole surviving coparcener because there was no partition with regard to the immovable properties of the Hindu undivided family. The deceased was, therefore, not the sole surviving coparcener as his uncle's sons were the other coparceners. It is apparent that the examination at that stage was whether the deceased was the sole surviving coparcener so that his entire share would pass by succession. Subsequently, the Assistant Controller found that for the purposes of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto facts or law, but was not in fact obtained, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer is not affected. Thus, if some material is obtained by research into law which research was not done earlier or which material was not in fact obtained earlier, such material would, according to this decision of the Supreme Court, be " information " . In Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax the Supreme Court held that the word " information " includes information as to the true and correct state of law, and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions. The term " information " really means knowledge about any fact or as to the legal position. In Anandji Haridas and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S. P. Kushare, Sales Tax Officer the Supreme Court considered the question whether " information " should be from outside source and not which could be gathered by the assessing authority from his own records. The court referred approvingly to the decisions of the Kerala High Court in United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that " to inform " means to impart knowledge and a detail available to the Income-tax Officer in the papers filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the correct position it would be information from an external source conferring jurisdiction. Similarly, knowledge obtained from the information of the Central Board of Revenue was held to be " information " within the meaning of section 59 of the Estate Duty Act in Assistant Controller of Estate Duty v. Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur. In our opinion information derived from research into law on which standard text books are available would clearly mean knowledge derived from an external source within the meaning of these decisions. In Thakur Das Tej Prakash v. Income-tax Officer, the Income-tax Officer found that in the original assessment he committed a mistake in applying section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. He initiated reassessment proceedings. This court held that the inadvertence in making an assessment would bring a case within section 34(1)(b) and if an error is discovered after the assessment was made that is information subsequent to the original assessment. It relied upon another decision of this court in Asghar Ali Mohamad Ali v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held : " Where in the original assessment the Income-tax Officer had om ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
