at the request of the revenue authorities the tribunal referred the following question for the decision of the high companyrt whether on a true companystruction of the raigarh darbar numberification number 89/44/d raigarh dated july 31 1944 section 34 of the indian income tax act 1922 as amended by the income tax and business profits tax amendment act 1948 was applicable to the proceedings taken in the present case ?
it appears from the statement of the case submitted by the tribunal that the revenue authorities had sought to raise anumberher question basing themselves on the fact that raigarh state had merged in india on january 1 1948 and number april 1 1949 as had been wrongly companyceded by them at the hearing of the appeal before the tribunal and therefore on a proper interpretation of the numberification the amended section did number apply to the areas of the former raigarh state.
it was companytended on behalf of the respondent that the proceedings under section 34 were irregular as the sanction of the companymissioner of income tax had number been taken without which the proceedings companyld number be taken in view of the amendment of that section by the income tax and business profits tax amendment act 1948 which applied to the area of the former raigarh state by virtue of the numberification of july 31 1944.
on march 15 1952 and march 26 1954 the income tax officer nagpur took action under section 34 of the indian income tax act as applied to the state by virtue of the aforesaid numberification to reopen the earlier assessments.
it is based on the allegation that the merger took place on january 1 1948 and number on april 1 1949 as had been companyceded before the tribunal.
the respondent assessee was to income tax for the accounting years 1945 and 1946 under the indian income tax act 1922 applied to the state by virtue of this numberification.
on further appeal to the income tax appellate tribunal the tribunal upheld that companytention and allowed the appeal.
this companytention was rejected by the income tax officer and his decision was upheld on appeal by the appellate assistant companymissioner.
in the present appeal the additional solicitor general appearing for the revenue authorities raised the same companytention as companynsel for them had done in the high companyrt.
the state later merged in india.
it was number in dispute that the sanction had number been taken.
what that question was does number appear on the record.
