Skip to content


Dwarka Dass Murlidhar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Madhya Bharat and Delhi States. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 4-D of 1956
Reported in[1961]41ITR113(P& H)
AppellantDwarka Dass Murlidhar
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Madhya Bharat and Delhi States.
Excerpt:
.....the sanction of the notice under section 34. in the present case there is ample material to show that such material in fact did exist and the notice under section 34 had clearly stated that the income-tax officer had reason to believe because certain information was in his possession......dass murli dhar, ahmedabad. then again a sum of rs. 790 was taken into consideration as share of assessees income from the firm known as rayfield engineering works, delhi. in the original order of assessment, this firm was treated as an unregistered firm and the amount was, therefore, included only for the purpose of rate. on the 10th of march, 1952, a notice under section 34 of the income-tax act was issued to the assessee and subsequently the figure representing the profits from the firm, m/s. kidar nath dwarka dass murli dhar, was increased to rs. 46,500. the firm, rayfield engineering works, was treated as a registered firm and the sum of rs. 790 was included in the assessment. against this an appeal was preferred to the appellate assistant commissioner and the argument taken was.....
Judgment:

This is an application under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act praying for an injunction directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer certain question of law the opinion of this court.

The assessment year is 1947-48. The income of the assessee derived from the two sources was taken in consideration by the Income-tax Officer. A sum of Rs. 33,830 was included as assessees share of the income derived from the firm, M/s. Kidar Nath Dwarka Dass Murli Dhar, Ahmedabad. Then again a sum of Rs. 790 was taken into consideration as share of assessees income from the firm known as Rayfield Engineering Works, Delhi. In the original order of assessment, this firm was treated as an unregistered firm and the amount was, therefore, included only for the purpose of rate. On the 10th of March, 1952, a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act was issued to the assessee and subsequently the figure representing the profits from the firm, M/s. Kidar Nath Dwarka Dass Murli Dhar, was increased to Rs. 46,500. The firm, Rayfield Engineering Works, was treated as a registered firm and the sum of Rs. 790 was included in the assessment. Against this an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the argument taken was that the Income-tax Officer had no information in his arguments taken was that the Income-tax Officer had no information in his possession on the 10th of March, 1952, when he issued the notice as required by section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disposed of this objection by drawing attention to the fact that the Ahmedabad firm had in fact been assessed to a higher income and the share of the assessee in the present case was, therefore, proportionately greater and as regards the question whether the sanction of the Income-tax Commissioner had been assessed to a higher income and the Ahmedabad firm had in fact been assessed to a higher income and the share of the assessee in the present case was, therefore, proportionately greater and as regards the question whether the sanction of the Income-tax Commissioner had been validly obtained, it was a matter entirely between the Income-tax Officer and the Income-tax Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer had represented the case to the Income-tax Commissioner and sanction had been validly given. On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the reading of section 34 there was no force in the points raised by the assessee. The assessee then applied to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for stating the case to this court in accordance with law and in an order which is detailed than the previous order the prayer was rejected.

The case of the petitioner depends solely on the question whether the Income-tax Officer had or had not in his possession information regarding the higher figure of income derived from the Ahmedabad firm on the 10th of March, 1952, when he issued notice under section 34. It is contended that the material constituting this information has not been revealed. It is not, however, necessary for the Income-tax Officer to inform the assessee what was the material upon which he founded his recommendation for the sanction of the notice under section 34. In the present case there is ample material to show that such material in fact did exist and the notice under section 34 had clearly stated that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe because certain information was in his possession. That being so, the question of law which has been mentioned in the petition depends solely upon a finding of fact which has been determined against the petitioner. No question of law, therefore, really arises and this petition is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 100.

Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.


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