TMI Blog1967 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been formulated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our decision, is : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any receipt of sale proceeds of Rs. 11,43,712 and Rs. 47,20,885 on behalf of the assessee in the taxable territories so as to justify assessment of the profits included therein under section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " The assessee, Shri Shivnarayan Harigopal, Indore, is an unregistered firm. In the accounting year from 20th June, 1947 to 8th July, 1948, it carried on business in the sale and export of cloth at Indore, which was then in non-taxable territory. In that year, there was an all-India control over the disposal of cloth. On receiving allotment orders for supply o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that the amount of profit received by the assessee in respect of these transactions was not received in taxable territories. The facts and circumstances in which this reference has been made are similar to those found in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmichand Muchhal. In Muchhal's case also, a similar question was propounded for decision and that was : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit along with interest of Rs. 33,784 and commission of Rs. 19,179 included in the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 28,93,802 and Rs. 9,31,000 could be said to have been received by the bank on behalf of the assessee in British India so as to attract levy to tax under section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting agent for the assessee and the sale proceeds must, therefore, be held to have been received by the assessee at Indore and not at the places in taxable territories where the bank received the amounts from the consignees. Learned counsel on either side did not suggest that the facts found in the present case were so different from those in Muchhal's case that the referred question cannot be answered in the same way as in Muchhal's case. In our judgment, this reference is governed by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmichand Muchhal. We accordingly answer the referred question in the negative. The assessee shall have costs of this reference. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 200. Question answered in the negative. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
