GAJANAND Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal From Order arises out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.

(2.) The appellant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act before the court of the District Judge, Mathura for being declared an insolvent on the ground that he was unable to pay his debts amounting to Rs. 50,000/-from his assets. The petition was contested by the Income-tax Officer and the Sales Tax Officer, Mathura, who, along with other creditors, are opposite parties to this appeal.

(3.) A date was fixed for the hearing of the petition, as provided under Section 24 of the Act, and the appellant examined himself in support of his case, in his statement the appellant admitted that he had not shown certain items of his properties in the list of assets gives in the petition. He categorically stated that he had omitted to show in his assets the number and the value of the 500 shares which he owned in the paid up capital of some Textile Mills, as also, a necklace of pearls consisting of 100 to 125 beads, whose weight or value he was unable to give before the Court. On being questioned he expressed his inability to give the details of the whereabouts of the Textile mills in which he owned his shares, as he did not know the same. It was also brought out in his evidence that there was a Motor Lorry No. US. 0852 which was owned by Thakur Ladll Raman Trust and was plying at Tundla-Etah Road, and the appellant was a trustee in the Trust. This Trust was alleged by him to have been created by his wife, and the expenses of the Trust were stated to be met by the income derived from running the lorry as a public vehicle. It was also brought out in his evidence that he had certain money decrees against certain parties but had not taken proper steps to realise the same. The appellant did not produce any other evidence in support of his petition.