MOHAMMAD HANEEF Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the two points that have been referred to us for decision are as follows :-

(2.) WHETHER on the above facts and circumstances of this case, it was open to the Tribunal to convert an assessment made against Mohd. Hanif as representing an association of individuals composed of Mohd. Husain and Mohd. Jan and assess him as representing an association of individuals composed of himself, Mohd. Zahir, Anwar Ali and Abdul Hasan ?

(3.) DURING the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1939-40 the Income-tax Officer received definite information that a business in hides was being carried on in Calcutta in the name of Mohammed Hussain Mohammad Jan by the same association of individuals, that is, Mohammad Hanif, Mohammad Zahir, Anwar Ali and Abul Hasan. The Calcutta firm was assessed to income-tax there with Mohammad Hussain and Mohammed Jan as proprietors of the firm. The Income-tax Officer at Ballia was, however, of the opinion that the income of the tax Calcutta business should have been included in the return for the assessment year 1938-39 filed at Ballia and that income had thus escaped assessment at least partially and issued a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act on the 5th of March, 1940. This notice was sent to Mohammed Hanif, son of Chhote Mohd. Hussain, village Kotwari, at present at Sugauli and was follows :-