TMI Blog1943 (9) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 66(3) of the Act if the Commissioner has refused to state a case on the ground that no question of law arises and the assessee makes an application to this Court, then if we are satisfied that a question of law does arise (it may be a substantial question of law or otherwise) we can require the Commissioner to state a case and to refer the question of law that does arise for our decision. It was under these circumstances that we directed the Commissioner to state a case, but now that all the facts have come out on a perusal of the various orders of the Income-tax authorities, we think that the question of law in the circumstances of the present case ought to be answered in the affirmative. The facts are that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue that the Assistant Commissioner uses the word remand which ordinarily under the Civil Procedure Code is considered, as it were, a final order of the appellate authority passed after the disposal of the case, but in this particular instance it is quite clear from the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated the 19th November 1934 that all that the Assistant Commissioner did was to ask for a report from the Income-tax Officer. This, we think, he was entitled to do under the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act. When the Income-tax Officer was submitting a report, the assessee did not co-operate with him but wanted to withdraw the appeal and therefore the Income-tax Officer on the 11th April 1935 submitted a more or less colourless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was determined at ₹ 51,842/-. We are not very much concerned with what the Commissioner did in appeal, but we may mention here that considering all the circumstances of the case he thought that profits disguised as deposits were not ₹ 31,408/- but only half of them. To that extent relief was granted by the Commissioner. The question which we have got to decide is whether under the circumstances of this case the Assistant Commissioner had the power in certain matters arising in the present case to set aside the flat rate adopted by the Income-tax Officer and to determine the profits from the account books themselves. We think that there is nothing in the Act which would prevent the Assistant Commissioner from doing so. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his own file and directed the Income-tax Officer to arrive at a decision different from what he had arrived at on an earlier occasion. As we pointed out before, the learned Assistant Commissioner had not on the 29th of November 1934 taken out the case from his own file but had only asked for a report from the Income tax Officer and this he was entitled to do under Section 31(2) of the Act. When the matter came finally before him after the report of the Income-tax Officer he was entitled under Section 31(3) either to confirm or to reduce or to enhance the assessment. He chose to do the latter and his powers are not in any way circumscribed by the Act. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
