TMI Blog1953 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of Purnea. The assessment in dispute relates to the year 1946-47 for the purpose of income-tax. The assessment for excess profits tax refers to the chargeable accounting period 20th April, 1945, to 31st March, 1946. In the course of assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer examined the account books and found that the trading account maintained by the assessee did not show the assessee's true profits. He, therefore, estimated that a sum of ₹ 20,072 should be added as profits to the amount shown in the books of account. There was another matter in respect of which the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. The account books showed that there were cash credits in the personal accounts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be altered at the hearing of the reference, if any fresh facts were necessary to be stated. But there is no point in this objection. No additional statement of facts is necessary in the present case. It is settled by a long line of authorities that the High Court may without raising a new and different question resettle and reframe the question formulated by the Tribunal before answering it so as to bring out the real issue between the parties (see, for example, Madanlal Dharnidharka v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City [1948] 16 I.T.R. 227, Jethabhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1949] 17 I.T.R. 533 and Caltex India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21 I.T.R. 278). On behalf of the assessee the contention of Mr. Dutt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion that the amount of profits for the accounting year was a sum of ₹ 15,644. It was argued that the amount of cash credit only supported the guess-work of the Income- tax Officer that there was concealment on the part of the assessee in the method of accounting and that the assessee did not show the correct profits of the business in the books of account. The submission of Mr. Dutt was that it was open to the Income-tax authorities either to accept the amount of ₹ 15,644 or the amount of ₹ 85,000 as the estimated profits of the assessee for the year in question but it was not open to the Income-tax authorities to hold that the estimated profits was made up of the amount of ₹ 85,000 plus ₹ 15,644 or to deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The amount of ₹ 15,644 and the other amount of ₹ 85,000 have also been included in the assessment for the purpose of calculating the excess profits tax. An attempt was made on behalf of the Income-tax Department to show that the sum of ₹ 85,000 has no connection with the sum of ₹ 15,644 which was the estimate of the extra profits made by the Income-tax Officer. It was argued by the learned Standing Counsel that there was possibility that the amount of ₹ 85,000 was not secreted profits from the business but was an item of income receipt from some undisclosed source not necessarily connected with the business of the firm in sugar, salt, kirana and other articles. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 85,000 as income of the assessee for the year of account and that the amount of ₹ 15,644 was not taxable in the hands of the assessee. For the reasons expressed I think that the question of law raised in this case should be answered against the Income-tax Department. The assessee is entitled to costs of the reference. Hearing fee ₹ 250. RAI, J.―I agree that the answer should be against the Income-tax Department but I would reserve my judgment on the point whether the question on which statement of the case has been called for from the Tribunal under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act can be changed by us at the time of the final hearing of the case. Reference answered accordingly. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
