The appellant was assessed as an individuol to expenditure tax for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. After the completion of the assessment, the Expenditure Tax Officer issued notice under section 16 of the Act calling upon the appellant to file supplementary returns for the three years on the ground that be had reason to believe that the appellant's expenditure had escaped assessment dr had been under assessed. The assessments were sought to be reopened for including the expenditure incurred by the wife of· the appellant. The appellant, thereupon, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the reopening of the assessments on various grounds. The petition was dismissed. In appeal to this Court it was contended : (1) the appellant's wife, who admittedly had her own properties and assets and had substantial income therefrom could not be regarded as 'dependent' within the meaning of section 2(g) (i) and, therefore, her expenditure could not be included under section 4(ii) for computing the expenditure of the assessee; (2) that there was no reasonable basis for making a distinction between an assessee, who was an individual and an assessee which was a Hindu undivided family; (3) that the action of the Expenditure Tax Officer in reopening the assessments under s. 16(a) was wholly arbitrary and illegal; that there had been no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of hi~ expenditure or to disclose fully and truly all material facts; and the Act was void for want of legislative competence.
