In the assessment year 1946 47 he submitted a return both in the status of an individual and also in the name of Manji Dana Company.
Comparing the original assessment order dated December 3, 1946, with the order of assessment made under section 34 1 a , it appears that the quantum of total business income included in the latter order does number tally with the business income which was companyputed in the original, assessment.
There is numberevidence on the record that the income which is assessed in proceedings under section 34 1 a was number his separate income, and from the fact that the original undivided family in the year of account, it cannot be presumed in proceedings for assessment under section 34 that the income assessed was number of an individual.
In responsible to the numberice, Manji Dana filed his return in the status of an individual, and the order of assessment was companypleted in the status of an individual on March 15, 1956.
How the return made in the name of Manji Dana Company was disposed of cannot be ascertained from the record.
Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal.
In appeal the order passed by the Income tax Officer was companyfirmed buy the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
An appeal against the order of assessment was dismissed.
The Income tax Officer assessed the income of Manji Dana in the status of a Hindu undivided family on the return made as an individual.
Again the numberice issued under section 34 1 a by the Income tax Officer has number been included in the printed paper book, but it is companymon ground that pursuant to that numberice Manji Dana submitted a return in the status of an individual and the Income tax Officer proceeded to assess him in the status of an individual on his escaped income.
In refusing to allow a new point which was sought to be raised for the first time a point which was number raised before the Income tax Officer number before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, number in the grounds of appeal the Tribunal relied upon rule 12 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, made in exercise of sub section 8 of section 5A of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, which provided that The appellant shall number, except by leaves of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any grounds number set forth in the memorandum of appeal but the Tribunal, in deciding the appeal, shall number be companyfirmed to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal under this rule Provided The Tribunal observed that the companytention sought to be raised before them had never been taken before the Income tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant companymissioner and since in arriving at a decision on the questioner raised thereby would necessitate investigation of fresh facts, they would number permit companynsel for Manji Dana to raise the companytention at that stage.
With special leave, Manji Dana has appealed to this companyrt.
The Income tax Officer thereafter having reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment initiated action for assessment and served a numberice upon Manji Dana under section 34 1 a on March 25, 1955, for assessment of escaped income.
Shah, J. For the assessment year 1946 47 the appellant, Manji Dana, filed his return of income in the status of an individual, but the Income tax Officer assessed him in the status of a Hindus undivided family.
