COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUNDARAM J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for determination in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari is whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to revise or review its own order passed on 22nd December 1960.

(2.) THE facts are very simple and clear. THE assessee is an exporter of coir mats and mattings at Alleppey. He returned a net income of Rs. 1827 for the period ended 31-12-1956, though his total receipts from business was to the tune of Rs. 4.46 lakhs. THE assessee was not maintaining regular books of account. On investigation and enquiry, the Department found that several amounts were invested in the name of his wife in the Eastern Bank Ltd., Cochin. When the department called upon him to explain the source of the investment made in the name of his wife, the assessee was not able to explain it, but merely requested the department to treat the amount as undisclosed income spread over the assessed years. THEreupon the department accepted the proposal subject to certain adjustments.

(3.) SIMILARLY the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Parameswaran Pillai v. Additional Income-tax Officer, (1955) 28 ITR 885: (AIR 1957 Trav Co. 217) observed at p. 889 (of ITR): (at p. 219 of AIR):