Skip to content


Shikharchand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 299 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1986]160ITR564(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 23(3) and 147
AppellantShikharchand Jain
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateB.L. Nema, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB.K. Rawat, Adv.
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. .....was not entitled to exemption under section 23(3)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961 '2. the relevant assessment years are 1966-67 to 1968-69. the assessee owns a house in the city of sagar which was kept vacant by him, as he was living with the father in the same city in a different house. the income-tax officer reopened the assessment for these years under section 147 of the income-tax act, 1961, on the ground that income from the property had escaped assessment. the commissioner (appeals) dismissed the assessee's separate appeals for these years and that view was affirmed also by the tribunal by dismissal of the further appeals filed by the assessee. the assessee's case was that the property was exempt under section 23(3)(a) of the act, inasmuch as the assessee had kept his house vacant.....
Judgment:

J. S. Verma, J.

1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee is to answer the following questions of law, namely ;

' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 23(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '

2. The relevant assessment years are 1966-67 to 1968-69. The assessee owns a house in the City of Sagar which was kept vacant by him, as he was living with the father in the same city in a different house. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment for these years under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that income from the property had escaped assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's separate appeals for these years and that view was affirmed also by the Tribunal by dismissal of the further appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee's case was that the property was exempt under Section 23(3)(a) of the Act, inasmuch as the assessee had kept his house vacant and was living with his father by reason of the fact that owing to his business or profession, he could not live in his house. It has, however, been found that the assessee was living with his father voluntarily for the sake of his own convenience and, therefore, Section 23(3)(a) is not attracted.

3. On the same facts, a reference relating to the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, which was Misc. Civil Case No. 115 of 1977 decided on March 19, 1982, has been answered against the assessee taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 23(3) of the Act. Following that decision, which is reported as Skikarchand Jain v. CIT [1982] 140 ITR 552 this reference also has to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

4. Consequently, the aforesaid questions are answered as follows :

' (i) The Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(ii) The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 23(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act 1961.'

5. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //