COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE points falling for consideration in these references had been answered earlier in CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 and CIT v. Rambha Devi [1987] 164 ITR 658. Mr. K. N. Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, has once again agitated the same questions. Out of deference to him, I proceed to a reconsideration of his submissions. It only needs to be stated that the present assessee, Pushpa Devi, is different from the assessee, Pushpa Devi, in the decision referred to above.

(2.) IN these references, we are concerned with the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The questions referred to us for our opinion are as follows:

(3.) THE core question in the references is whether the Income-tax Officers had to assess ladies and minors in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act or whether they were to be assessed in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act. If the assessments had to be made in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act, a detailed inquiry was a must. In that connection, the question would be whether the so-called inquiry was really an inquiry or not. THE other questions are merely incidental or fall out of the core question. In order to resolve the core question, we must have a look at paragraph 4 of the scheme which reads as under (at p. 642 of 164 ITR):