9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in holding that the succession took place on October 12, 1948, and, consequently, the benefit of section 25(4) could be availed of only in the year 1950-51 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,810 was rightly taxed and as profit under section 10(2)(vii), second proviso, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business under the name and style M/s. Badri Prasad Jagan Prasad, Agra. It has a branch styled as M/s. Jagan Prasad Shiv Prasad of Achnera. The assessee was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. In assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1949-50, the relevant previous year being the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n took place on October 12, 1948. That date marks the commencement of the previous year relating to the assessment year 1950-51. The Tribunal has held that the claim for the benefit conferred under section 25(4) falls to be considered in the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1950-51. Clearly, no tax was chargeable for any profits that may have accrued on October 12,1948, the date on which the succession took place. The profits of the broken period are exempt from tax. The Tribunal has also found that, an application was made within time by the assessee that the profits of the previous year should be substituted by the profits of the broken period. It was held that the benefit so applied for was available to the assessee, not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o this relief in the year of assessment in which the income and profits of the accounting period in which discontinuance or succession takes place fall to be assessed. " In view of these observations, upon the finding of the Tribunal that succession took place on October 12, 1948, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 25(4) in the year 1949-50 but he could avail of that benefit in the year 1950-51. The first two questions referred are answered in the affirmative. As regards the third question the facts are these. The assessee was carrying on a branch business under the name and style of M/s. Jagan Prasad Shiv Prasad of Achnera. At that branch a truck was purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was sold during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1949-50 for Rs. 11,810. No depreciation had been allowed after the purchase of the truck. As regards the point whether the surplus of the sale proceeds over the written down value had been actually brought to tax, by the Income-tax Officer under section 10(2)(vii) the Tribunal has attempted an analysis of the several components into which the surplus could be broken and has attempted to show that a sum of Rs. 2,127 could be properly included in the assessment as representing the residual surplus in the plying of the truck. This latter circumstance appears to us to be of no relevance having regard to the question framed for the opinion of this court. It is sufficient to poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
