TMI Blog1934 (6) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h has been framed by the assessee as under:- Whether the return furnished by the petitioner was an invalid return? This reference relates to the assessment for 1931-32, made on an association of individuals (henceforth called the assessee) who carry on business as hide merchants with their head office at Jullundur in British India, and a branch business at Basti Nau in the Kapurthala State outside British India. For purposes of an assessment for the year 1931-32, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22(2) of the Income tax Act requiring the assessee to furnish a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, setting forth his total income during the previous year. The notice was accompanied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated by Note 5(a) were not such as could invalidate the return. No explanation was however, offered for the qualification affixed to the figure of income entered in the return. The Income Tax Officer refused to reopen the assessment, vide his order under Section 27, attached as Appendix A. Thereupon an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner who supported the Income Tax Officer and rejected the appeal, vide his order under Section 31 (copy attached as Appendix B). I have now been asked to state a case on the question reproduced above. Under Section 22(2) of the Act, the assessee was required (1) to furnish a return in the prescribed form, (2) to verify it in the prescribed manner, (3) to set forth his total income during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merchants with their head office at Jullundar in British India and a branch business at Basti Nau in the Kapurthala State. The Income Tax Officer issued the usual notice under Section 22(2) of the Income Tax Act requiring the assessee to furnish return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, setting forth his total income during the previous year. The notice was accompanied by the printed form of return prescribed under Rule 19 of the Indian Income Tax Rules, 1922. The assessee sent back the form of return to the Income Tax Officer with the entries about 800 and about 110 in columns 2 and 3 respectively, against head 5, business, trade, commerce, manufactures, etc. These figures were again qualified by the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar case came before a special Bench of three Judges of the Rangoon High Court. This case is reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. A.R.A.N. Chettiyar Firm. The assessee in that case made a return in the prescribed form and, under head 5, showed the profits or income in money- lending business about ₹ 5,000. None of the details required under note 5 were given and the income tax authorities treated the return as no return at all and ultimately made the assessment under Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act. It was held they were justified in doing so. It is unnecessary to give other authorities as we are in agreement with the Rangoon decision. In the case before us there is an additional circumstance, namely that, in the verificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
