BALADIN RAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 663/1966Supreme Court[1969] 1 S.C.R. 80021 August 1968Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, was assessed for the assessment year 1944-45, with the previous year ending October 28, 1943. The original assessment considered income from an iron foundry business and property. The assessee was also a partner in the firm Raj Narain Durga Prasad, whose accounting year ended April 1, 1944. This partnership and the assessee's share of profit were not disclosed in the return. In December 1943, the assessee, along with the firm, started a joint venture supplying Sarpar and bamboo to the Government, involving investments of Rs. 27,000 between December 1943 and February 1944. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) issued notices under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, leading to revised assessments in 1952 and 1954 for AY 1944-45. The first revised assessment included income from the firm, and the second included the Sarpar and bamboo investments as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee challenged both revised assessments, arguing Section 34(1)(a) was not attracted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal, and the High Court ruled against the assessee.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held against the assessee on both issues. Regarding the 1952 assessment (income from the firm), the Court noted the High Court's observation that there was no finding that the share of income was unknown when the return was filed. Given the admitted fact that the partnership was not disclosed in the return, the assessee could not argue that Section 34(1)(a) was not attracted, especially as the burden was on the assessee to prove the ITO's awareness of the income. For the 1954 assessment (Sarpat and bamboo business investments), the Court affirmed the principle that income from undisclosed sources must be taxed as income of the relevant financial year. Therefore, investments made between December 1943 and February 1944 were rightly taxed for AY 1944-45. Disclosure in the proceedings for AY 1945-46 did not constitute disclosure for AY 1944-45. The Court also clarified that Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not alter the position under the old Act regarding undisclosed income not credited in the assessee's books. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was attracted for the revised assessment in 1952, which included the assessee's share of income from the firm Raj Narain Durga Prasad, considering the firm's accounting year ended after the assessee's previous year and the full facts came to light during the assessment for the subsequent year. 2. Whether Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was attracted for the revised assessment in 1954, which treated investments in the Sarpat and bamboo business as income from undisclosed sources, given that the business commenced in December 1943 (after the previous year ended) and the investments were disclosed during the assessment for the subsequent year 1945-46. Assessee's arguments: (i) Regarding income from the firm: The firm's accounting year ended after the assessee's previous year, and the income/share was not determinable at the time of filing the return. Full facts were known to the ITO only during the assessment for the next year, thus Section 34(1)(a) was not attracted. (ii) Regarding Sarpat and bamboo business investments: The business commenced after the close of the previous year. As per the definition of 'previous year' in Section 2(11), income from this source could not be shown in the return for the previous year. The income was disclosed and assessed in 1945-46, so Section 34(1)(a) was not attracted for the 1954 revised assessment. Revenue's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34(1)(a),Section 2(11),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

8 00 BALADIN RAM v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P.

August21, 1968 (J. C. SHAH, V. RAMAsWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Indian lncom'-la.x Act, 1922, s. 2( I) Gnd 34(1) (al-Assessment of int:cnne escaping assessment-Applicability of s. 34( 1) (a)-Depo.rils assessed ar; reprPsenting inconie from undisclosed sources-Previous year for. . l"he asscc;sce--a Hindu undivided fa1nily (-) \Vas a~scsscd in 194445 for the income of its previous year ending Ocrober 30, 1943. The incon1c shown in the return \\ras from iron foundry business and properly, and income from these sources only was taken into account in the original assessment.

The asscsscc through a son of the karta was also a partner in the firm Raj Narain Durga Prasad.

The accounting year of the firm ended on April I, 1944 and the assesscc's return did not show any income as share of profit in the firm nor was mention made in the return of Lhc cxislcnce of the partnership.

In Dcccmhcr, 1943 1he asscssce aJong v.·ith Raj Narain Durga Prasad started a joint venture of supplying Sarpar and bamhoo to the Government. Bct\\·ecn the commencc- meat of rhc joint venture and Febru~ry 18, 1944, the asscsscc

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 34(1)(a)

All 29 judgments and leading authorities on Section 34(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →