VENKATESH MURTHY G Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which, for convenience sake, hereinafter will be referred to as the "Act". The Tribunal, Madras Bench, has submitted the question "whether the assessments made under s. 34(1)(a) of the 'Act' are valid" for the opinion of this Court as a question of law arising from its consolidated order made on 13th Nov., 1962, in I.T. As. Nos. 9978 to 9981 of 1961-62 on its file.

(2.) ON 24th Feb., 1954, the assessee and six others started a new firm known as Murthy Silk House. Out of the seven partners of the firm, two, namely, Shantamma and Shivamma, are his wives, one was his father-in-law, another his step-sister and yet another his maternal aunt. In the deed of partnership, Shantamma and Shivamma were not described as wives of the assessee. ON the other hand, they were described as daughters of Venkataramaniah and Puttashamiah, respectively. For the asst. yrs. 1955-56 to 1958- 59, the assessee furnished returns of his income, wherein he included only his share of income from Murthy Weaving Factory as well as from Murthy Silk House. The assessee was a partner in Murthy Weaving Factory, which firm was dissolved on 1st April, 1954. Thereafter, the assessee took over that factory as his individual concern. In the return for the asst. yr. 1955-56, the assessee had given the names of the partners of Murthy Silk House but omitted to give any address of theirs except saying "Bangalore." Even that detail was not furnished during the three succeeding years.

(3.) BUT the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment years in question. The finding of the Tribunal on this point is a finding of fact. The Tribunal has given good reasons in support of that finding. Therefore, the correctness of that finding is not open to examination by this Court. The Tribunal had found that at the time of the assessment, the ITO was not aware of the fact that Shantamma and Shivamma are the wives of the assessee. It has further come to the conclusion that no material was placed before the ITO from which he could have concluded that they were the wives of the assessee. Therefore, if we are to come to the conclusion that the assessee had a duty to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, then there can be no doubt that the assessments under s. 34(1)(a) of the "Act" are valid. Therefore, the only question that arises for decision is whether the assessee had a duty to disclose to the ITO that Shantamma and Shivamma are his wives.