SUBRAMANIA IYER R M Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a business man engaged in motor lorry transport. In respect of the assessment year 1958-59, he made a return of his income to the Income Tax Officer, Kottayam who is the respondent in this case. His return showed the income from property as Rs. 465 and the income from business as Rs. 9,302 the total income being Rs. 9,767. The respondent rejected the petitioner's return, and made an assessment to the best of his judgment fixing the income as Rs. 715 from property Rs. 50,579 from business and Rupees 30,000 from other sources. He thus fixed the total income as Rs. 81,294. The sum of Rs. 30,000 according to the order of assessment consisted of Rs. 8,000 paid for purchase of a parkins Engine, Rs. 15,000 paid for the purchase of a new lorry and Rs. 7,000 invested on building. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum who allowed the appeal in part. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that out of the sum of Rs. 30,000 assessed by the respondent as income from other sources Rs. 26,722 alone related to the assessment year 1958-59 and that this amount should be added as undisclosed income from business. Accordingly he deleted the whole sum of Rs. 30,000 assessed by the respondent as income from other sources, and determined the total income of the petitioner from business as Rs. 35,947. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Kerala. Ernakulam "

(3.) The petitioner's learned counsel contended that S.69 of the 1961 Act had no application to this case and that it ran be applied only for assessment years commencing from the coming into force of the 1961 Act According to the respondent's learned counsel, the case fell under Sub clause (ii) of Clause (d) of S.297(2), and this sub clause attracted the operation of the S.147 to 150 of the 1961 Act, and S.147 attracted the application of S.69 in respect of unexplained investments. It is not necessary for me to decide this question in view of the decision I take on the applicability of S.147 of the 1961 Act to this case.