COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. VAROO K P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH regard to the assessment year 1967-68 these are the two references, one (ITR No. 35 of 1990) arising out of the assessment proceedings and the other (ITR No. 36 of 1990), arising from penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) IN both these references, the assessee, Sri K. P. Varoo, Calicut, is non est. Efforts in the direction of bringing the heirs and legal representatives have not been successful. Even learned counsel for the original assessee has not been able to do anything in the situation. We are expected to answer the questions and, for the purpose of answering them on the basis of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Order 22, Rule 10A, Civil Procedure Code), as the appearance of learned counsel for the assessee continues, we have heard him on the merits. IN the light of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kishori Lal Makundi Lal, IN re [1941] 9 ITR 193, and other decisions in connection therewith, we proceed to answer the questions as the mere death of an assessee would not preclude this court from answering the question, even if the reference is at his instance and with no difficulty if the reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The questions expecting our answer are as follows :

(3.) THIS was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. He observed that the intangible additions would have shown on the statement of the closing stock and inadequate drawings of the partners and then the situation would have been available for being given to the assessee, in regard to which there is no material. The Income-tax Officer added this amount of Rs. 50,000 and since no explanation was offered, the proceedings for levy of penalty were also simultaneously initiated. THIS was by an order dated March 16, 1972.