The assessee had filed a reference application, also under s. 66 1 the Income tax Act in these cases.
1 which had been specifically raised in the memoranda of appeals before it, that the Tribunal therefore, companyld and should have reviewed its orders and rectified its mistake in the exercise of its inherent powers when that mistake was brought to its numberice by the assessee by his application dated April 2, 1956 that s. 35 of the Income tax Act which provides a period of four years limitation for seeking rectification of mistakes in assessment orders, was number applicable to assessment orders made by the.
while making his report to the higher authorities.
The Revenue filed a Special Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge before the Appellate Bench of the High Court.
Subsequently however on May 24, 1954 he wrote a letter to the Income tax Officer saying that he was sorry to omit one important point i.e., Ground No.
The Excess Profits Tax thus assessed for the accounting years, was to the tune of Rs.
This application was dismissed on August 27, 1951 by the Tribunal on the ground that there was numbermistake apparent on the record.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5 8 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
I am, thus, unable to allow this companytention.
Profits in the major accounts had to be worked out by the application of a rate to the turnover.
The accounts are left in the same manner as for the earlier years.
In this representation, also, he did number take up Ground No.
1 mentioned in the Excess Profits Tax Appeals Nos.
On July 24, 1957, the Tribunal stated the case and made a reference on the other question to the High Court in companypliance with that Courts order, dated April 12, 1956.
The assessee then made applications under s. 66 2 of the Income tax Act before the High Court requesting for reference on certain question of law arising out of the order, dated February 24, 1951, of the Tribunal.
Against the orders of assessment, the assessee preferred two appeals on September 24, 1949 to the Assistant Appellate Commissioner.
That application was dismissed by the Tribunal on August 28, 1951.
Thereafter, during the proceedings before the Tribunal for preparation of the statement of the case, the assessee moved an application, dated July 23, 1957, requesting it to refer the question of adjustment of standard profits on account of increase and decrease in the capital in the relevant periods to the High Court, in addition to the questions of law directed by the High Court to be referred to it.
In the memoranda of appeals, one of the specific grounds taken was, that the Excess Profits Tax Officer and the Assistant Appellate Commissioner had erred in number allowing to the assessee proper standard profits in accordance with the standard period subject to the adjust ment on account of the increase and decrease of capital in the relevant chargeable accounting period.
On March 11, 1954, the assessee made a representation to the Central Board of Revenue praying for reopening of the assessments.
The profits of that year were Rs.
Hence this appeal.
It was prayed that the appeals relating to excess profits tax matters which should be deemed to be still pending owing to the number decision of Ground No.
The assessee on July 27, 1951, made an application under s. 35 of the Income tax Act, 1922 for rectification of its order to the Tribunal on grounds other than the one regarding variation in the standard profits due to increase and decrease of the capital.
No figures have been shown to me, number has any exact working been fur nished at this stage.
1 be disposed of after hear ing the assessee.
This application was rejected for the reason that the question had number been raised in the reference applica tion, number did it arise out of the appellate orders of the Tribunal.
His representation dated March 11, 1954 and the petition dated May 24, 1954, both were rejected and the Commissioner companymunicated those rejec tions to the assessee by a letter dated May 25, 1955, saying that he did number see any justification for re opening the assessments which had become final and closed.
651 and 660 of 1949 and 1950 and his subsequent application dated April 2, 1956.
In these applications, alsO, he did number ask for reference on a question relating to Ground No.
48,978/ , respectively.
By two separate applications dated October 24, 1949, the assessee took an additional ground of appeal which obvious ly he had number taken in the original memorandum of appeal that the Excess Profits Tax Officer had erred in number allowing adjustments on account of the increase and decrease of capital in the relevant chargeable accounting period.
1 raised in his two appeals, relating to the standard profits of the two chargeable accounting periods and pointing out the failure of lower authorities to make necessary adjustments in such profits according to s. 6 of the Excess Profits Tax Act hereinafter referred to as Ground No.
In the Income tax appeals, some relief was granted, but in the Excess Profits appeals, numberrelief was granted due to the variation of the capital in the chargeable accounting period of 1945 46 and 1946 47.
Thereafter on April 2, 1956, the assessee made a second application to the Tribunal which in substance was one for review of its orders, dated .February 24, 1951 , companytending that Ground No.
1,06,181.5 and Rs.
1 regarding adjustment of standard profits .
The Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings and orders of the learned single Judge.
In his orders, the assessing Officer said that for reasons detailed in the earlier assessment orders numberadjustments are made for capital variations in the standard period and the chargeable accounting period.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1539 of 1971.
The previous years 193637 was chosen by the assessee as his standard period.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried appeals to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
It was reiter ated that the appellant was always prepared to file his companyputation of average capital.
Tribunal under the Excess Profits Act that companysequently, the Tribunal was in error in refusing to treat the assessees application, dated April 2, 1956,.as one for rectification of a mistake of the Tribunal on 16 1003 8C1/76 the ground of limitation.
under two assessment orders dated August 26, 1949.
1 was number disposed of by the Tribunal.
The Excess Profits Tax Appeals and other Income tax appeals filed by the assessee were heard together by the Tribunal and disposed of by companymon orders dated February 24, 1951.
The assessee added that he was always prepared to file his companyputa tions of average capital.
Dismissing the appeals by his orders, dated November 24, 1949, the Assist ant Appellate Commissioner negatived the assessees companytention, in these terms As in these years numberregular accounts have been maintained and it is number possible to make any adjustment for variations in average capital which cannot be exactly ascertained.
In the result, the learned Judge set aside the Tribunals order, dated June 9, 1956, and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the assessees applica tion dated April, 2, 1956, afresh in accordance with law.
1, from his representation to the Board, and that the Income tax Officer should supplement the same.
On November 4, 1968, the assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for a writ of Mandamus requiring the Tribunal to companysider his Ground No.
This ground relating to standard profits was number dis cussed by the Tribunal and numberfinding was recorded thereon.
No grievance was made in this application that the Tribunal did number companysider and decide the ground relating to adjustment of standard profits according to variation in capital during the relevant peri od.
T.M. Sampath and Ram Lal, for Respondent No.
B. Ahuja and R.N. Sachthey, for the Appellant.
58/65 .
These reasons as given in the earlier assessment order, dated October 30, 1947, per taining to the chargeable accounting period ending March 31, 1944, were As companyplete and regular accounts are number maintained by the assessee, it is number possible to make any adjustment for variations in average capital which cannot be accurately ascertained.
The writ petition was heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court who held that while disposing of the appeals, it was the duty of the Tribunal to record a finding on Ground No.
It arises as follows M s. S.B. Singar Singh and Sons hereinafter called the assessee were assessed to Excess Profits tax for the chargeable accounting periods, ending March 31, 1945 and March 31, 1946.
The Tribunal rejected this companytention with the remark that the appeals were decided as early as 24th February, 1951 and it is number futile to companytend that the matter was pending when the Tribunal had already passed orders and the orders were served on the assessee.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal on certificate is directed against an appellate judgment, dated August 5, 1969, of a Bench of the High Court of Allahabad.
38,703/ .
After deducting the profits of the standard year, the Excess Profits Tax Officer, assessed the tax on the remaining amounts of profits.
