9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r relevant to the assessment year 1956-57, the appellant sold two patlas of gold. He had after the partition entered the price of these two patlas of gold at Rs. 24,514. They were sold for Rs. 46,250. The Income-tax Officer brought the surplus of Rs. 21,736 to tax on the finding that the gold represented the stock-in-trade of the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal. The only point raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the surplus receipts were not liable to tax, because they had not constituted revenue receipts, but were capital gains. It appears that for the assessment year 1947-48, the appellant was assessed in respect of three out of the seven patlas of gold because he had gold them during the course of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the result that it was incumbent on the authority to afford an opportunity of hearing. For this proposition reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer. In that case the principal question involved was whether the revisional jurisdiction under section 33A was administrative or quasi-judicial in nature. The Supreme Court after discussing the matter came to the conclusion that it was judicial in nature. In that connection it was observed : " Prima facie, the jurisdiction conferred under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is a judicial one. The order that is brought before the Commissioner affects the right of the assessee. It is implicit in revisional jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of this court in Dulal Chand Pramanick v. Commissioner of Income-tax . In that case the Orissa High Court held that the Supreme Court had in Dwarka Nath's case ruled that the assessee was entitled to a hearing of the revision petition. We are unable to accept this construction of the Supreme Court's decision. We have quoted the only relevant observations of the court on this point and according to it the parties are to have an opportunity to put forward their case in the manner prescribed. The requirements of a judicial proceeding are not to invariably afford an opportunity of oral hearing. (See F. N. Roy v. Colleclor of Customs). The facts of this case are simple enough. The Appellate Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities. The appellant wishes to raise this point before us on the basis of the decision given by this court on a reference for the assessment year 1947-48. A perusal of that judgment which is Gangadhar Babu Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax shows that the appellant, who was the assessee there, had specifically raised the question of valuation on the basis of the market value as a separate plea before the income-tax authorities. That is why a separate question was framed and referred to the High Court and answered by the High Court. Since the plea was not raised in the present case before any of the income-tax authorities, the appellant is in our opinion not entitled to raise it for the first time here. We find no substance in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
