COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BOTTLEWALA D S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference the following question of law has been referred to us under s. 66(2) of the IT Act, 1922 :

(2.) THE assessee is an individual who was formerly doing share business as a partner of a firm and was also a member of the stock exchange. He was being assessed by the ITO, A Ward, Bombay, within whose jurisdiction the business address fell. Later on, the assessee discontinued his business activities and from 1941- 42 onwards his assessment was done by the ITO, D-1 Ward, to whom the case records were transferred by the ITO, A-Ward ; this was done on 24th August, 1943. THE jurisdiction of the ITO, D-1 Ward, was based on the residence of the assessee.

(3.) IN March, 1962, the ITO, D- I Ward, in-charge of the assessee's case, reopened his assessments for 1953-54 under s. 34(1)(a) and for the asset. yr. 1957-58 under s. 34(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that on a proper construction of the provisions in the trust deed the settlement was revocable and consequently the trust income was liable to be assessed in the settlor's hands under s. 16(1)(c). IN the reference, we are only concerned with the assessment for 1957-58, reopened under s. 34(1)(b). This is because the Tribunal, has concluded that the assessee had not been guilty of any failure or omission within the meaning of s. 34(1)(a) and there is no reference before us pertaining to this finding of the Tribunal.