TMI Blog1968 (10) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the lorry business - question is answered in negative - - - - - Dated:- 17-10-1968 - Judge(s) : A. R. SOMNATH IYER., AHMED ALI KHAN. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SOMNATH IYER J.-This is a reference directed by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee and the question of law which is now before us is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act when there was a reassessment of the income, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the income from the transport business was Rs. 15,525 and that the income from the very lorry business was Rs. 4,778. The effect of the reassessment made by the Income-tax Officer was that the original income from the lorry business which was determined to be Rs. 8,600 became smaller to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lorry business to be Rs. 8,600 on no other ground than that the Income-tax Officer had no power to reduce that income to a smaller figure. It is clear that this view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is unsupportable and that the Tribunal should not have shared that view. That decision in Natarajan's case can have no application to the present case in which the notice under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had entered with the Government of India. Now, in the reassessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer increased the income from the transport business and reduced the income from the lorry business but the total income assessed by him was higher than the total income which he had previously assessed. That being so, and since in the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 34 he in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that reduction. But it is clear that that view taken by him was mistaken. So, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and our answer is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in law in enhancing the revised figure of income computed by the Income-tax Officer by a sum of Rs. 3,822. The assessee will get his costs. Advocate's fee, Rs. 250 - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
