TMI Blog1953 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em as heads of the Hindu undivided family represented by each. The Income-tax Officer then issued notices under Section 22(4) for production of certain account books. These notices were not complied with and he then proceeded to make the assessment under Section 23(4) of the Income- tax Act. No application under Section 27 of the Income-tax Act was filed on behalf of any of the three assessees for cancellation of assessment under Section 23(4) and making a fresh assessment under Section 23(3). The three assessees, however, straightaway filed three appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner went into the question whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in making the assessment under Section 23(4) instead of under Section 23(3) and he came to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer was not so justified under Section 23(4) and after having recorded that finding he considered the assessment on the merits and made certain adjustments, and so far as Sir Padampat Singhania was concerned the result of the adjustments was that the total income was reduced by a figure of ₹ 3,85,189. This order of the Appellate Assistant Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial Committee in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency Aden v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 I.T.R. 414. As that case was not cited before us when we decided the case of Chhotelal Gobardhan Das [1953] 23 I.T.R. 272 , we heard counsel on the point and considered the question whether the Privy Council decision made it necessary for us to reconsider our previous judgment. After having carefully considered the matter, however, we do not feel disposed to change the opinion already expressed by us in Chhotelal Gobardhan Das's case [1953] 23 I.T.R. 272 . In Khemchand Ram Das's case [1938] 6 I.T.R. 414. , the Income-tax Officer has issued notices under Sections 22(2) and 22(4). When the assessment was made, Section 30 of the Income-tax Act had not been amended and there was no appeal against an assessment order made under Section 23(4). An appeal was, however, filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and was considered on the merits but failed. The question was debated whether the assessment was, in fact, made under Section 23(4) or under Section 34 or Section 35. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had expressed no opinion but their Lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal in the regular way? This Court held that when an assessment is in fact made under Section 23(3), merely by requiring the production of some unnecessary books or documents, which were not needed for the assessment, the Income-tax Officer cannot call it an assessment under section 23(4). With the observations made in that judgment we respectfully agree. If, however, the assessment has in fact been made under Section 23(4) as the best judgment assessment, we find it difficult to hold that even before the amendment of Section 30 the assessee had a right to file an appeal and have the question debated whether he was prevented from making compliance with the notice under Section 22(4) by reason of sufficient cause. Mr. Pathak has urged that in a case where an assessee has already made his submissions why he was not able to comply with the notice under Section 22(4) and the Income-tax Officer had held against him and had come to the conclusion that he had not complied with the notice and had thereafter proceeded to make the assessment under Section 23(4), it would be useless for the assessee to apply to him again under Section 27 for reconsideration of the question and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the last two cases the assessee claimed a deduction to that extent which he alleged was interest due from him to the firm Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat. This he alleged was interest on amounts drawn by him from that firm. It was, however, admitted by the assessee that he had not paid any interest to the firm, nor was there any agreement to pay that interest. The amount was claimed merely on the ground that the Income-tax Officer, while making the assessment of the firm Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat, had wrongly disallowed a sum of ₹ 30,000 as not being interest on the money borrowed for purposes of that business. The assessee's claim was that the Income-tax Officer having made a mistake in assessing the firm Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat, he must be made to make another mistake while assessing the particular assessee so that the two mistakes might neutralise the effect and the assessment might be as it should have been according to the assessee. This is hardly any ground for claiming the reduction. On the facts admitted that no interest was payable or had been paid, the assessee could not claim any deduction. We cannot, therefore, ask for any reference in these two cases-Miscellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
