9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1949 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} CHAGLA C.J. AND TENDOLKAR, J. STATEMENT OF CASE By this application the assessee requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court certain questions of law which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's order in I.T.A. No. 129 of 1946-47 (R.A.A. No. 32/Bom. of 1946-47). Inasmuch as a question of law does arise out of the aforesaid order we hereby draw up a statement of the case, to which the parties agree, and refer it to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee is a firm consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Tribunal that the sum of ₹ 16,544 was not a trading receipt and that it did not represent the assessee's income of the previous year. It was also urged that the assessee did not do any speculation business since 1939. The fact that the assessee did not do any speculation business in the financial year 1943-44 does not appear to have been stressed because two of the three members of the Tribunal who heard the appeal say in their order that "the assessee carries on business in share speculation". The main contention of the assessee was that the sum of ₹ 16,544 remitted by the creditor could not be considered to be the assessee's income. The appeal was heard by the President and Mr. Sahgal. Mr. Sahgal rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt under Section 4(3)(vii)." As the President and Mr. Sahgal differed, the point of difference, namely, whether the amount of ₹ 16,544 was liable to be included in the assessee's total income in the year of account was referred to Rao Bahadur Sankara Narayana. Many cases were cited before him. He relied on the case of Union Bank of Bijapur and Sholapur Ltd.[ [1948] 16 I.T.R. 183] and agreed with the President. The result was that the assessee's appeal was dismissed. 4. The question of law that arises is:- "Whether the sum of ₹ 16,544 was the assessee's income within the meaning of Section 2(6C) of the Indian Income-tax Act of the financial year 1943-44 and as such liable to be included in its total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shah taking a contrary view, and it was referred to a third member Mr. Sankara Narayana who agreed with the view of the President. Now I must confess that our decision was not before the Tribunal and they were considerably influenced by an earlier decision of this Court reported in the case of Union Bank of Bijapur and Sholapur Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay*. That was a decision of Sir John Beaumont, and in that case the Bank claimed a certain amount as loss by reason of embezzlement on the part of an employee and the loss claimed was allowed. In a subsequent year the Bank recovered a portion of the sum embezzled and the Income-tax authorities included the net sum realized thereby in the total income of the assessee for that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
