This numberice was issued under section 20 of the Act, which companyfers on the Commissioner authority to rectify any mistake apparent from the record.
undivided family which was registered as partner on 23 8 1940, was companycerned.
They also held that as the mistake appeared on the face of the record, the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 20 of the Act to pass the order which he did.
23,028 10 0 which had been paid by the appellant as excess profits tax for those years.
By their judgment dated 22nd August 1950, the learned Judges agreed with the Commissioner that by reason of the partition there was a change in the persons who carried on the business, and that the order dated 23 12 1946 was companytrary to section 8 1 of the Act.
The facts relating to the reconstitution of the firm having companye to the knowledge of the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax on examination of the record, he issued a numberice on 19 2 1948 calling upon the appellant to show cause why the order of the Excess Profits Tax Officer dated 23 12 1946 should number be set aside on the ground of mistake.
11,514 5 0 which had been refunded to it should be companylected.
The appellant appeared in response to the numberice, and companytended that on the facts the proceedings under section 20 were misconceived.
By his order dated 15 3 1950 the Commissioner held that on the facts disclosed on the record, there was a change in the persons carrying on the business, and that the award of relief under section 7 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer was a mistake.
In the result, the writs were refused.
The facts on which the proceedings were taken were number themselves disputed.
The mistake, according to the Commissioner, companysisted in the Excess Profits Tax Officer failing to take into companysideration the change in the companystitution of the firm which took place on 17 10 1944, companysequent on the disruption of the joint Hindu family of one of the partners.
He further directed that Rs.
The firm carried on business at Drug in Madhya Pradesh as the agent of the Government for the purchase of foodgrains, and during the accounting years ending 1943 and 1944, it made profits on which it was assessed to excess profits tax respectively of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 22nd day of August 1950 of the Nagpur High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.
Under this agreement, the partners of the firm were five in number, Richpal .Gajadhar Mohanlal, Chhotelal and Bansilal, the two former being entitled to 5 annas share each and the latter three to 2 annas each.
It should be mentioned that at the companymencement of the assessment year 1944 1945 there was a partition in the joint family of which Mohanlal was the erstwhile karta, as a result of which he and his brothers, Chhotelal and Bansilal, became divided in status.
139 of 1953.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
Acting under this section, the Excess Profits Tax Officer passed an order on 23 12 1946 whereby after setting off the profits of the firm for the years ending 1943 and 1944 against the deficiency of profits during the year ending 1945, he directed a refund of Rs.
Radhey Lal Agarwala and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
Consequent on this disruption of the joint family, the appellant firm was reconstituted under an agreement dated 17 10 1944.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant thereupon moved the High Court of Nagpur under article 226 for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner dated 15 3 1950 and for a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities from companylecting Rs.
13,005 5 0.
Section 7 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, provides that when there is a deficiency of profits in any chargeable accounting period in any business, the profits of that business during the previous years shall be deemed to be reduced eo extanti, and that the relief necessary to give effect to the reduction shall be given by repayment of the tax paid or otherwise.
Against this judgment, the appellant prefers this appeal by special leave.
67 of 1950.
He, however, maintained the order dated 23 12 1946 with reference to Richpal and Gajadhar, and set it aside only so far as Bhagat Ram Mohanlal, Hindu.
February 15.
There was thus a reconstitution of the firm both with reference to the persons who were its partners and the shares which were allotted to them.
10,023 5 0 and Rs.
53,571.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India G. N. Joshi and R. H. Dhebar, with him for the respondents.
37,800 which was the standard profits for the business, the Excess Profits Tax Officer determined the deficiency of profits for the year at Rs.
11,514 5 0 under that order.
