Munnalal Motilal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. - Court Judgment
|Court||Madhya Pradesh High Court|
|Case Number||Misc. Civil Case No. 110 of 1979
|Respondent||Commissioner of Income Tax.|
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him.....is as follows :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it was open to the it authorities to investigate into the genuineness of the deposits aggregating rs. 15,826 and record a finding in regard thereto when disclosure petitions made by smt. kapooridevi and virendra kumar u/s 24 of the finance (no. 2) act of 1965 had been acted upon by the it authorities ?'2. the disclosures under the finance act no. 2 of 1965 were made by smt. kapoori devi, the wife of the karta, and virendra kumar, his major son. the question is whether in the assessment proceedings against the huf the it authorities can investigate into the genuineness of the deposits which were subject-matter of disclosure. the point in our opinion, is entirely covered against the assessee by the decision of the.....
Faizan Uddin, J. - The question of law referred in this reference u/s 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, is as follows :
'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it was open to the IT Authorities to investigate into the genuineness of the deposits aggregating Rs. 15,826 and record a finding in regard thereto when disclosure petitions made by Smt. Kapooridevi and Virendra Kumar u/s 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 had been acted upon by the IT Authorities ?'
2. The disclosures under the Finance Act No. 2 of 1965 were made by Smt. Kapoori Devi, the wife of the Karta, and Virendra Kumar, his major son. The question is whether in the assessment proceedings against the HUF the IT Authorities can investigate into the genuineness of the deposits which were subject-matter of disclosure. The point in our opinion, is entirely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT : 130ITR244(SC) and by the decision of this Court in Addl. CIT v. Samrathmal Santoshchand : 124ITR297(MP) . The facts in the instant case are quite similar to the facts in Samrathmal Santoshchands case. Following these decision, our answer to the question is that the IT Authorities have jurisdiction to investigate into the genuineness of the deposits. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.