SHAH, - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) ONE Amritlal died on 18/10/1944. For the assessment year 1945-46 his estate was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 22,160.00 from salary and other sources. In January 1946, Anusuya Devi widow of Amritlal encashed high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 5,84,000.00 , and made a declaration as required by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946 that: `A sum of Rs. 5,84,000.00 in notes were made over and/or directed to be made over by the declarant's deceased husband Amritlal Ojha at Rajkot in April, 1944, sometime before his death for the benefit of declarant and her 8 minor sons.` In a proceeding for reassessment of the income of Amritlal for the assessment year 1945-46 the attorney who appeared on behalf of Anusuya Devi stated that `Amritlal was from time to time, during the last 30. years of his life, giving gifts to his wife and also setting apart money exclusively for his wife and children and that the fund so accumulated which remained in a cupboard` was found after his death. The Income-tax Officer disbelieved the explanation furnished and brought the amount of Rs. 5,84,000.00 to tax as income of Amritlal in the year of account 1944-45 from an undisclosed source, and with his decision the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed. At the hearing of the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate tribunal, Anusuya Devi-widow of Amritlal-filed an affidavit in which it was stated, inter alia 5. `From time -to, time during our married life, late Sri Amritlal Ojha used to make presents of cash moneys to me on occasion of birthday of myself and of my sons and daughter by him and also on the occasion of his own birthday and on the anniversary of our marriage.` 6. `My husband late Sri Amritlal Ojha used to tell me that these presents of cash money that he made was to make provisions for me and my minor sons and daughter and also to meet the expenses of their education and marriage in the event of his death.` 8. `The total amount of the money so paid by late Sri Amritlal Ojha was Rs. 5,84,600.00 . This amount was my stridhan property and was all along in my possession.` This affidavit was admitted in evidence by the tribunal, but the tribunal declined to admit an affidavit of Gunvantray one of the sons of Amritlal, because in their view an attempt was made to bring on record a large number of new facts which were not disclosed before the departmental authorities. The tribunal declined to accept the case set up by Anusuya Devi. Beside pointing out the discrepancies in the statements made from time to time, which rendered her case unreliable, the tribunal expressed the view that gifts made during a long period of `20 to 30 years` could not all have been made only in thousand rupee notes. The tribunal accordingly upheld that order bringing to tax Rs. 5,84,000.00 as income from an undisclosed source in the account year 1944-45.
(3.) IN her application for stating a case to the High court on eleven questions set out therein Anusuya Devi asserted that in her declaration under s. 6 of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, she had given information pursuant to the queries as follows : JUDGEMENT_779_AIR(SC)_1968Html1.htm The tribunal rejected the application. The High court of Judicature at Calcutta however directed the INcome-tax Appellate tribunal to state a case on the following question : `Whether the tribunal erred in law by basing their decision on part of the evidence ignoring the statement made as regards the withdrawal of Rs. 4,94,000.00 by 494 pieces of Rs. 1,000.00 notes from the bank?` In compliance with the order, the tribunal observed that the extract from the statement incorporated in the petition under s. 66(1) was materially different from the statement reproduced in the order of the Income-tax Officer and that the tribunal was not invited to consider at the hearing of the appeal the truth or otherwise of the alleged copy of the declaration incorporated in the petition under S. 66(1) and that at the hearing ofthe appeal the original declaration had not been produced.;