COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUMANKUMAR I PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 :-

(2.) We have heard Mr Tanvish Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee.

(3.) The assessee is an individual. For assessment year 1983-84, the assessee filed his return of income on 26.9.1983 at total income of Rs.26,020.00. The Income-tax Officer accepted the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. On scrutiny of the record of the assessment as made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee for the year under consideration, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot noticed that the assessee's wife Smt. Arunaben Sumankumar had filed her return of net wealth for the first time for assessment year 1983-84 on 29.9.1983 showing gold ornaments weighing 656 gms. valued at Rs.91,988.00. She had explained the acquisition of the gold ornaments as having been received by her in 1974 at the time of her marriage. The Commissioner of Income-tax further noted that Shri Ishwarlal C. Parikh, the father of the assessee had not shown any expenses on marriage of the assessee. Assessee's wife Smt. Arunaben, had no other source of income except interest income. The Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, found that the ornaments were required to be treated as acquired by the assessee out of his income from undisclosed sources. He, therefore, held that the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in as much as the same had been made without making proper enquiries regarding acquisition of gold ornaments by the assessee's wife. He, therefore, invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and after hearing the assessee set aside the assessment as made by the Income-tax Officer and directed him to read the same afresh according to the provisions of law.