JAINARAYAN BABULAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under S. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, is made at the instance of the asessee. The question that is referred reads thus :

(2.) THE assessment year we are concerned with is the asst. year 1950 51. The previous year for this assessment year is the Smart year ending Diwali, 1949. The assessee is an HUF which derives income from business in cotton, cotton seed, oilcakes and grains and a business called

(3.) A fresh notice was then issued by the ITO to the assessee to show cause why it should not be subjected to a penalty under S. 28(1)(c) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, in regard to, inter alia, the non disclosure of the said amount of Rs. 24,600. In its reply, the assessee contended its that appeal to the Tribunal having been allowed, it was not competent to the ITO to issue the fresh notice. It was also contended that the addition of the said amount of Rs. 24,600 to its total income was unsustainable as the credits that aggregated thereto appeared in November, 1948, and the appropriate previous year for this income, assessed as being from undisclosed sources, was the financial year ending 31st March, 1950. The ITO passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000 in regard to the non disclosure of the said amount of Rs. 24,600. He accepted the assessee's contention in regard to the other amount of Rs. 10,000. On appeal, the AAC upheld the penalty.