TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted was July 18, 1952. But no return was filed within the time. One return was filed on January 8, 1953, under section 22(3); but it was not accompanied by the usual documents such as, profit and loss account, balance-sheet, etc., which an assessee is require to annex to the return. Therefore, a notice under section 23(2) was issued on May 17, 1955. It appears that, ever prior to that date, the Income-tax Officer had issued several notices under section 22(4) and for every one of them the assessee asked for adjournment on some ground or other. Even after the issue of the notice under section 23(2) a number of adjournment were asked for and granted. It appears from the statement of the case that between May 17, 1955, and February 22, 1957, the Income-tax Officer gave adjournments on not less than nine occasions. The assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 had to be completed on or before March 31, 1957. In spite of this, when the matter was posted to March 5, 1957, the assessee again asked for n adjournment. The request was granted and the case was finally posted to March 25, 1957. On that day, no one appeared for the assessee. But a telegram was sent by the Sanyasi Row, the son ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken into account and that, therefore, the assessments barred by limitation. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the decision in Swaminathan v. Lakshmanan . In our opinion, that case has no application to the present case. The question that arose for decision in that case was one under section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. In that case, an order was passed by the sub-Registrar refusing registration of a document on the ground that the document did not appear and admit it execution and the party affected by the order applied to the Registrar under section 73(1) of the Registration Act to establish his right to have the document registered more than thirty days after the sub-Registrar passed the order but with thirty days after the communication of the order reached the applicant. It was held that : In a case where an order was not passed in the presence of the parties or after notice to them of the date when the order would be passed, the expression within thirty days after the making of the order,' used in section 73(1) and section 77 of the Act means within thirty days after the date on which the communication of the order reached the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in rice to the alarming extent in the course of which he was estimated to have made illegal profits amounting to ₹ 5 lakhs which were not brought to his regular accounts. This news item was reported in the India Express (Daily) dated August 28, 1951. No doubt, we are told that the order of detention was quashed by the High Court. Though at the time the Government abolished the procurement of paddy there were restrictions for the movements of paddy and rice from one district to another. The assessee is the proprietor of Sri Ganeswara Oil Mills at Payakarowpet of Vizagapatnam District. This place is just the bank of the Thandav river which forms the boundary between East Godavari District and Vizag District. East Godavari District is a surplus area and the Vizag District is deficit one where there was scarcity of rice. The suggestion is that the assessee firm was smuggling the rice into his mill from East Godavari District and was employing several persons for this purpose, who bring the paddy to the mills across the river by the head-loads, by bullock carts and also by train. These persons, it is stated, were paid in cash on the spot and the rice so purchased was sold in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 for 1948-49 and ₹ 84,000 for 1949-50. The department also took in to account that the assessee firm showed a loss of ₹ 6,000 for the year 1950-51. But it may well be that the assessee firm was able to show a loss of ₹ 6,000 for 1950-51 for the reason that the assessee firm suppressed it income as is evident from the letter of the partner, Suryanarayana, referred to above. These are the main facts on which the Tribunal relied in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner determining the income of the assessee firm at ₹ 50,000. But is it argued by Sri Ramakrishna Row, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the finding of the Tribunal based upon mere suspicion and irrelevant material and that the law requires that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant consideration or matters of prejudice. Therefore, it is urged that the Tribunal may be asked to reconsider the matter. In support of this argument, reliance is placed upon the decision so the Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax ([1959] 37 I. T. R. 151 ; A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 1238) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica ram v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
