9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... five persons who may be called " Ghoshes ", and as a part of that scheme for transfer of the shares, investments of the company of the value of Rs. 1,01,000 odd were transferred to Kumars and the company purchased 400 shares of Messrs. East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., hereinafter called " the Trust ", held by two out of the five Ghoshes at the rate of Rs. 257-4-0 per share. The company sold the shares of the trust to Messrs. Chandoo Lall, a registered sharebroker, at the rate of Rs. 60 per share, and the latter in their turn sold the shares to Bijan Mohan Kundu at the rate of Rs. 61 per share. In proceedings for assessment for the assessment year 1953-54 the company claimed that it suffered a total loss of Rs. 76,241 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , " imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(c) was undeniably called for. " The Tribunal, however, reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000. The company then applied that a statement of the case be drawn up and the following questions be referred under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the High Court of Calcutta as arising out of the order of the Tribunal : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had evidence or material for the finding that there was deliberate fabrication of the accounts by the assessee-company in order to claim the loss in the return and the imposition of penalty upon the company under section 28(1)(c) of the Act is proper and valid ? (2) Whether in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the company concedes that the first question submitted in the applications to the Tribunal and the High Court was one of fact and the High Court could not call upon the Tribunal under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act to state a case and refer that question. Counsel, however, submitted that the second question arose out of the order of the Tribunal and raised a substantial question of law. The question suggested in the petition under section 66(2) before the High Court was that since the Tribunal had in an appeal against the order of assessment come to the conclusion that the transaction relating to the purchase and sale of the trust shares was a genuine transaction, but it was not a part of its trading activity, an order under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act could not be asked for. Counsel submitted that in Scindia Steam Navigation Company's case this court held that the question whether an amendment in the Income-tax Act was in force in the year of assessment with which the case of the assessee-company was concerned, was allowed to be raised before the Bombay High Court even though that question was not raised or argued before the Tribunal, and this court approved of the view of the High Court that the question could be raised and decided by the High Court. But in Scindia Steam Navigation Company's case the question framed was as to the liability of a sum of money to be assessed to tax as income received by the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
