In the said supplementary statement of case it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the appellants, number having filed any appeals either against the orders of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under section 33 4 of the Income tax Act or against the orders of the High Court under section 66 2 of the Act refusing the applications of the appellants to require the Tribunal to state the case, companyld number be allowed to maintain the present appeals.
But on the Income tax References Nos.
737 to 740 of 1949 50.
When these income tax returns were companysidered by the Income tax Officer he came to the companyclusion that certain sums had been received by the appellants from the manager by way of interest which were liable to assessment and he accordingly included those sums in the assessment orders which he passed for those several years.
1896, 1895, 1897 and 1898 of 1947 48.
II/43 44, Income tax Appeals Nos.
Income tax Appeal No.
737 to 740 of 1949 50 in which leave was granted by this companyrt by its order dated 27th September, 1954.
When the Income tax Officer discovered that certain money had been received by the appellants from the manager he issued a numberice under section 34 of the Income tax Act in regard to the assessment year 1938 39.
6, 38, 000 by about 1928 29.
As a result of certain transactions which need number be detailed here Rameshwarlal Ganeriwalla became the creditor of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad in a large sum of over Rs.
Hence these appeals After the appeal paper book had been filed as also the statement of cases by the respective parties to these appeals, the respondent on the eve of the hearing, that is, on the 19th February, 1959, made an application before this companyrt for leave to file a supplementary statement of case which application was granted by this companyrt at the hearing.
These assessment orders were passed by the Income tax Officer on the respective dates, the 20th March, 1943, 31st March, 1944, 30th November, 1944, and 31st October, 1945.
5, 42, 173 as on 1st April, 1934, and the manager from time to time made payments by way of dividends to the appellants indicating in the companyering letters how the payments were to be appropriated.
The appellants carried further appeals against these orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal being Appeals Nos.
The appellant preferred appeals against these orders, being Income tax Appeal Nos.
These applications were registered as Reference Applications Nos.
Rules were issued by the High Court as prayed for.
The appellants for the assessment years 1938 39 to 1941 42 submitted income tax returns in the first of which they did number mention any part of the money which they had received from the manager and in the rest of which they mentioned certain amounts as having been received by them.
It was further submitted that whatever may be the scope of the appeal by special leave directly against an appellate order of the Income tax Tribunal under section 33 4 of the Act, it was number open to the appellants to canvass the companyrectness in law or in fact of such order in an appeal against an order under section 66 1 of the Act refusing to state the case, the only matter open for discussion in these appeals, if any, being whether and, if so, what question of law arose for determination out of the Tribunals order under section 33 4 of the ActThese appeals came tip for hearing and final disposal before a Division Bench of this companyrt, on the 24th February, 1959.
1895 of 1947.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 3rd December, 1949, dismissed Income tax Appeal No.
90, 91, 92 and 93 of 1951 companying up for hearing before it the High Court by its order dated the 15th June, 1953, discharged the said rules.
AIR 1960 SC 280 The Judgment was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. BHAGWATI, J. These four appeals with special leave granted by this companyrt under article 136 of the Constitution are directed against the orders, dated the 8th June, 1951, of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay A, in Reference Applications Nos.
13/CC II/45 46 and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order, dated 13th June, 1947, and 18th July, 1947, disposed of all these four appeals companyfirming the orders which had been passed by the Income tax Officer.
The debt due by the Nawab Bahadur to Rameshwarlal Ganeriwalla was admitted by the Board of Revenue in a sum of Rs.
Some time in 1933, an Act named the Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933 XXIII of 1933 , was enacted under the provisions whereof the Estate of the Nawab Bahadur was taken over by the authorized manager.
These applications were dismissed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 8th June, 1951 The appellants thereupon applied to the High Court under section 66 2 of the Income tax Act praying for a rule upon the respondent to show cause why the Income tax Appellate Tribunal should number state cases relating to the above four assessment proceedings and refer certain questions of law to the High Court.
The appellants thereafter filed four petitions for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8th June, 1951, in Reference Applications Nos.
8 and 22/CC II/44 45 and Income tax Appeal No.
1897 and 1898 of 1947 48, were also dismissed on the 3rd December, 1949The appellants thereafter applied to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66 1 of the Income tax Act requiring the said Tribunal to state cases and refer certain questions of law to the High Court at Calcutta, for its opinion.
1896 of 1947 48 was dismissed on the 7th November, 1949, and the two other appeals, being Income tax Appeals Nos.
737, 738, 739 and 740 of 1949 50 and arise under the following circumstances The appellants were at all material times a Hindu undivided family of which Rameshwarlal Ganeriwalla is the karta.
