Judgment

SHAH, J.: Ramanathan Chettiar, his son Muthiah Chettiar - called hereinafter for the sake of brevity, Muthiah - and Ramanathan, Annamalai and Alagappan, sons of Muthiah, constituted a Hindu undivided family. The family owned a 3/5th share in M. RM. S. Firm, Seramban in Malaya. The firm was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the status of a firm resident within the taxable territories. On September 16, 1950, Muthiah separated from the family taking his 1/5th share in the M. RM. S. Firm. On April 13, 1951 the status of the family became completely disrupted and the three sons of Muthiah took in equal shares the remaining 2/5th share - the grandfather Ramanathan taking no share in the M. RM. S. Firm.

2. For the assessment year 1952-53 Muthiah submitted a return of his income as an individual and stated under the head business income "Kindly ascertain the (assessee s) share of profit and remittances from the Income-tax Officer, Second Additional Circle - I, Karaigudi, in F. 6098-M/ 1952-53 . In Part III of the return Muthiah supplied the following information about his partners :

Name and address of the firm Name of each partner including assessee Share

Messrs. R. RM. S. Firm 1. Assessee (Muthian Chettiar). 60/303

Seramban, F. M. S. 2. VD. M. RM. M. RM. M. Ramanathan Chettiar (minor) 40/303

3. VD. M. RM. M. RM, M. Alagappan Chettiar (minor) 40/303

4. VD. M. RM. M. RM. M. Annamalai Chettiar (minor) 40/303

5. C. P. R. 60/303

6. M. S. S. 60/303

7. Charity. 3/303

For the assessment year 1953-54 in column 3 in Section B of the return Muthiah stated "Kindly ascertain the remittances from the Income-tax Officer, Fifth Additional, Karaikudi in F. 6098-m", and at p. 3 of the return in column 3 of Sec. F it was stated :

"Assessee has 60/303 share in Messrs. M. RM. S. Joint Seramban (Malaya), Kindly ascertain share of profit or loss from the Income-tax Officer, Fifth Additional, Karaiudi in F. 6098."

In Part III of the return he set out the names of the partners as were mentioned in the return for 1952-53. Against the names of Ramanathan Chettiar, Alagappan Chettiar and Annamalai Chettiar it was not disclosed that they were minors.

3. For the assessment year 1954-55 at the foot at page 1 of the return Muthiah stated :

"The assessee has remittance of Rs. 6,188-12-0 from R. RM. S. Firm Seramban. His share of income may be taken from the firm s file.",

and in Part III the names of seven partners as mentioned in 1952-53 return were set out-Ramanathan, Alagappan, Annamalia were not shown as minors.

4. Ramanathan, Alagappan and Annamalai- the three minor sons of Muthiah represented by their mother and guardian also filed returns of their respective income for the years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 and disclosed therein their shares in the profit from the 2/5th share in the M. RM. S. Firm.

5. For the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 the Income-tax officer completed the assessments separately on the firm, on Muthiah as an individual and on the three minors represented by their mother and guardian. Muthiah was assessed in respect of his share in the income of the firm and from other sources. In his returns Muthiah had not disclosed the shares received by his minor sons and the Income-tax Officer did not in making the assessments include shares of the minors from the firm under S. 16 (3) (a) (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer issued notices of reassessment to Muthiah under S. 34 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 and under S. 34 (1)(b) for the year 1954-55. Muthiah filed returns under protest declaring the same income as originally assessed. In the view of the Income-tax Officer Muthiah had not furnished in Part III Clause (c) of the return full facts regarding the other parties and in column 2 he had merely disclosed that Ramanathan, Alagappan and Annamalai were minors: that information was not full in the sense that he had not stated that they were minor s