COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SATYANARAIN LOHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference made at this instances of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) The facts as found by the Tribunal in this case are as under : The assessment year under reference is 1959-60. For this year, the original assessment of the assessee was completed op a total income of Rs. 19,000 comprising Rs. 7,000 as "business income'' and Rs. 12,000 as directors remuneration assessed under the head "Income from other sources". Subsequent to the completion of the original assessment of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147(a) of the said Act after recording the following reasons on March 12, 1968:

(3.) The Tribunal, in this case, has clearly recorded the fact that the materials on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer, Survey Ward, District V(1), held Sri G.P. Lohia to be a benamidar of the assessee has not been brought on the record. The reasons as recorded by the Income-tax Officer give an impression that the assessee failed to disclose to his Assessing Officer the fact that the Income-tax Officer, Survey Ward, District V(1), had treated his son as a benamidar of his father. The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not be said to have failed to disclose the aforesaid fact, since the aforesaid finding was recorded by the Income-tax Officer in the case of the son, Sri G.P. Lohia, long after making the original assessment of the assessee for the year 1959-60.