TMI Blog1960 (8) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything expressly to the contrary, we cannot hold that the direction would lead inevitably to the admitting of fresh evidence. This, at least, now cannot be done. Appeal dismissed. - C.A. 30 OF 1958 - - - Dated:- 17-8-1960 - Judge(s) : J. C. SHAH., M. HIDAYATULLAH., S. K. DAS JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.---This appeal, by special leave of this court, is against the judgment and order dated March 24, 1955, of the Punjab High Court by which the High Court, purporting to act under section 66(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, called for a supplemental statement of the case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The special leave granted by this court is limited to the question whether the High Court had jurisdiction in this case to call for the supplemental statement. The assessee, Messrs. S. Zoraster Co., Jaipur, consists of three partners. Two of them are coparceners of a joint Hindu family, and the third is a stranger. They had formed this partnership in June, 1940, for the manufacture and sale of blankets, felts and other woollen articles. A deed of partnership was also executed on March 16, 1944. The assessee entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the decision of this court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which, it is claimed, completely covers this case. In that case also, the High Court of Bombay had called for a supplemental statement of the case, and it was ruled by this court that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. Before dealing with this question, it is necessary to go back a little, and refer briefly to some cases decided earlier than New Jehangir Vakil Mills' case and Jagdish Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, on which reliance has been placed in this case. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax the High Court of Bombay called for a supplemental statement of the case, but it expressed the view that if a cheque was received by a creditor on a British Indian bank and he gave the cheque to his bank for collection, the bank must be treated as his agent and that, on the realisation of the amount of the cheque in the taxable territory, the creditor must be regarded as having received it in the taxable territory, even if he was outside it. In Sir Sobha Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was held by the Punjab High Court that where cheques were gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case that though the cheques were received at Bhavnagar, they were, in fact, cashed in British India and until such encashment, income could not be said to have been received but that on encashment in British India, the receipt of income was also in British India. The Tribunal held that the cheques having been received at Bhavnagar the income was also received there. In doing so, the Tribunal followed the Bombay decision in Kirloskar Brothers' case. The Tribunal, however, observed that if the Bombay view which was then under appeal to this court were not upheld, then an enquiry would have to be made as to whether the mills' bankers at Ahmedabad acted as the mills' agents for collecting the amount due on the cheques. The question whether the posting of the cheques from British India to Bhavnagar at the request, express or implied, of the mills or otherwise, made any difference was not considered at any stage before the case reached the High Court of Bombay. This was expressly found to be so by this court in these words : " The only ground urged by the Revenue at all material stages was that because the amounts which were received, from the merchants or the Government, were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the Tribunal to state further facts so that we may properly exercise our own advisory jurisdiction. " This court pointed out that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 66(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act. It was observed : " If the question actually referred does not bring out clearly the real issue between the parties, the High Court may reframe the question so that the matter actually agitated before the Tribunal may be raised before the High Court. But section 66(4) does not enable the High Court to raise a new question of law which does not arise out of the Tribunal's order and direct the Tribunal to investigate new or further facts necessary to determine this new question which had not been referred to it under section 66(1) or section 66(2) and direct the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case. " It was also pointed out that the facts admitted and/or found by the Tribunal could alone be the foundation of the question of law which might be said to arise out of the Tribunal's order. The case thus set two limits to the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 66(4), and they were that the advisory jurisdiction was confined (a) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to take in all the approaches. But the question must still be the one which was before the Tribunal and was decided by it. It must not be an entirely different question which the Tribunal never considered. " It follows from this that the enquiry in such cases must be to see whether the question decided by the Tribunal admits the consideration of the new point as an integral or even an incidental part thereto. Even so, the supplemental statement which the Tribunal is directed to submit must arise from the facts admitted and/or found by the Tribunal, and should not open the door to fresh evidence. The fact that in Ogale Glass Works' case the Bombay High Court had asked for a supplemental statement in the same way as in Jehangir Vakil Mills' case and this court did not rule out the new matter, cannot help the assessee in the present case, because the jurisdiction of the High Court was not questioned, as it had been done in Jehangir Vakil Mills' case, or has been done here. We have thus to see whether in this case the question which was decided and which has been referred to the High Court admits the return of the case for a supplemental statement on the lines indicated by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
