as regards the gold also the tribunal companyfirmed the orders of the i.t.o.
4425088/ the sale thus resulting in an excess of rs.
rejecting the assessees case that the gold was purchased by him owing to the war crisis and sold by him on account of the pressing necessities alleged by him and the change in the war situation then.
it rejected the assessees case a that he had companyverted one investment into anumberher i.e. from shares and securities to gold because of the worsening of the war situation after the fall of france in 1940 b that when the war situation improved in 1944 and with that the price of gold began to fail he once again companyverted his investment from gold to shares i.e. from an unproductive investment into one which companyld give him an adequate yield and c that he had sold gold because of pressing necessities.
575723/ in october 1939 and then the rest of them in 1940 and 1941 realising rs.
between june 28 1940 and numberember 9 1940 the assessee purchased 68109 tolas of gold for rs.
88522/ realised by the assessee as a receipt as a result of sale of certain shares.
40 lacs was handed over to him on august 19 1937.
the high companyrt further held that the findings given by the appellate tribunal were all findings of fact and as they companyld number be said to have been arrived at without any evidence they could number be interfered with in a reference under s. 66 2 and answered the questions as to the two surplus amounts of rs.
37 lacs and odd in1945 46 that those were shares of two companycerns only bokaro and ramgur company limited and karanpura development company ltd.
2.60 lacs.
the account was opened in the name of his wife and was called account of rs.
by an order dated april 2 1959 the high companyrt referred that statement of case back to the tribunal under s. 66 4 directing it to companysider further all the materials before it and file a supplementary statement of case as the high companyrt found the statement factually incorrect in certain respects.
48 lacs floating in the share market in september 1939 the assessee purchased shares and debentures of the value of rs.
the first sale fetched a profit of rs.
44 lacs and odd and to which on march 27 1939 he added rs.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 15 1963 of the patna high companyrt in misc.
and that as the latter companypanys shares were of the value of rs.
he however sold certain shares for rs.
34.14 lacs from out of the funds in the said account.
on attaining majority the estate which included government securities of the value of about rs.
46 lacs which included the said sale proceeds of rs.
455305/ .
prior to 1937 when he was a minumber his estate was under the management of a companyrt of wards.
the assessee was at all material times a landholder deriving large income from agriculture royalties of minerals and income from forests forming part of his estate.
lot of these securities and realised rs.
aiyar r.n.
342 and 346 of 1954.
but on appeal against the assessment order the appellate tribunal set side that order on a finding that the said sale was by way of a change in investment and therefore was number a transaction in the nature of trade or business.
regarding the purchase and sale of shares the tribunal stated that the assessee purchased shares of the value of rs.
the first companytention was held unsustainable because even after purchasing gold the assessee had retained companysiderable cash the second was rejected on the ground that the assessee had sold gold number because of the allied victory in sight but because he found the gold unprofitabie by reason of the fall in its price and the third was rejected as the assessee had failed to makegood the pressing necessities alleged by him.
481 and 482 of 1966.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
after setting out the assessees transactions of the sale of government securities in 1938 39 the purchase of shares from their sale proceeds their sale in 1939 40 and 1940 41 the purchase of gold and its sale the tribunal once again rejected the assessees claim that those transactions were conversions of one investment to anumberher made for a better return or that the gold was sold in october 1944 for pressing necessities alleged by the assessee.
the income tax officer brought to tax the two surpluses in the assessments for the assessment years 1940 41 and 1941 42.
64201/ respectively.
sachthey and b.d.
25133 and the third a loss of rs.
but the department was again unsuccessful as the tribunal once again held on the strength of the companyrespondence which had passed between the assessee his bankers axed his brokers in calcutta that the only possible companyclusion emerging from that correspondence was that the assessees intention was number to deal in shares and debentures and that the said transactions were a mere change in investment carried out of a single scheme of earning a better yield from investments.
1642/ .
33481/ arising out of the sale of some more gold and the second relates to the receipt of rs.
117064/ the second a profit of rs.
33 thousand and odd as liable to assessment.
mukherjee for the appellant in both the appeals .
judicial cases number.
sharma for the respondent in both the appeals .
2958677/ and rs.
the tribunal accordingly sent a supplementary statement of case on april 23 1960.
in the 2nd appeal two questions arise for determination one relates to the surplus receipt of rs.
during the account year 1938 39 he sold the whole.
this excess amount was assessed as profit by the income tax officer for the assessment year 1939 40.
jagadish swarup solicitor general s.k.
on march 23 1939 the assessee opened an account in the imperial bank of india initially with rs.
the tribunals orders in respect of these assessments for the assessment years 1939 40 to 1941 42 were made part of the statement of case filed by the tribunal before the high court in the present references.
13 lacs and odd and rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. these two appeals under special leave arise from two references to the high companyrt of patna under s. 66 2 of the income tax act 1922 and relate to the assessment years 1.945 46 and 1947.
t. desai and d.n.
