But the subject mater of the appeal is the assessment and the scope of the appeal must in my opinion be limited by the subject matter.
3 1942 22 T. T. R. 502 510.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the said sum of Rs.
These questions were Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was companypetent to enhance the assessment of the Appellant for the assessment year 1947 48 by a sum of Rs.
The Income tax Officer also found remittances to the extent of Rs.
40,000/ represented a receipt of a capital nature, while it Was held to be a receipt on the.
1,17,64311, companytending that the Rajkot business had numberprofits but only loss.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 14, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No.
4 lakhs.
In the proceedings for assessment for the assessment year, 1946 47, this came to the numberice of the Income tax Officer.
T. R, 909.
The appellate authority has numberpower to travel beyond the subject matter of the assessment and, for all the reasons advanced by the appellant, is in my opinion number entitled to assess new sources of income.
40,000/ .
His income from Purnea only was assessed by the Income tax Officer.
the observations in that case may be treated as obiter.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or cause further inquiry to be made by the Income tax Officer.
The companyrectness of this view is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
The head of income was the same with s. 6 of the Income tax Act, but the sources of income were different.
3 in disposing of an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, a companyfirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, b set aside the assessment and direct the Income tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after making such further inquiry as the Income tax Officer thinks fit or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may direct and the Income tax Officer shall thereupon proceed to make such fresh assessment and determine where necessary the amount of tax payable on the basis of such fresh assessment There is numberdoubt that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can enhance the assessment.
The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but on the application of the assesse, referred two questions to the High Court under s. 66 1 .
The view of the Patna High Court receives support from a decision of the Madras High Court in Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income taxwhere the Divisional Bench observed as follows Of companyrse, it would number be.
On appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner assessed him with regard to the income from the other two businesses.
open to the 1 1957 31 1.
In the return filed for the assessment year, 1947 48, this amount was number shown by the assessee.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In Bishwanath Prasad Bhagwat Prasad v. Commissioner of Income tax 1 the Appellate Assistant companymissioner had actually remanded the case, but while companysidering the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Divisional Bench appears to have approved of the above quoted passage from Madras case.
The High Court held, following its earlier view in Narrondas Manordas v. Commissioner of Income tax 1 , that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has revisional powers, but that they are companyfined to what was before the Income tax Officer and companysidered by the latter.
In Narrondas Manodas v. Commissioner of Income tax 2 is to be, found the earlier case of the Bombay High Court which was followed in the judgment under appeal.
40,000/ ?
Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources, as his power of enhancement should be restricted only to the income which was the subject matter of companysideration for purposes of assessment by the Income tax Officer.
40,000/is a revenue receipt anti assessable to tax in the assessment year 1947 48 ?
2 1925 1.
Since the receipt fell within the accounting year relative to the assessment year, 1947 48, the Income tax Officer did number assess the amount making a numbere, The question will however be companysidered again at the time of 1947 48 assessment.
While the appeal was pending, the Income tax Officer wrote a letter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner intimating him that he would like to be present, and also requesting him to assess the amount of Rs.
The assessee appealed with respect to the sum of Rs.
40.000/ .
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after issuing numberice, assessed the amount and included it in the original assessment The companytention of the assessee was that the amount of Rs.
420 of 1961.
It is admitted also by the assessee that within the four companyners of the sources processed by the Income tax officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can enhance the assessment.
Feburary 14.
4 lakhs from Rajkot to Bombay, but did number include that amount in the assessment in view of the companycession allowed by the Part B States Taxation Concession Order.
The Income tax Officer also overlooked the numbere at the end of his order in the back years assessment, with the result that this item was omitted, The asseessee appealed to Appellate Assistant Commissioner against his assessment for the year, 1947 48.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted this companytention, but set aside the assessment and remanded the case to the Income tax Officer for reassessment with a view to assessing the sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J The assessee, who is the respondent here, had received on July 20, 1946 a a sum of Rs.
The companytroversy in this case is about his discovering number sources, number mentioned in the return and number companysidered by the Income tax Officer.
J. Kolah, D. H. Dwarkadas, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the respondent.
I. R. 4 Pat.
The profits from the Rajkot business were assessed by the Income tax Officer at Rs 1,17,643/ .
In that case, the assessee had three businesses at Purnea, Jalpaiguri and Calcutta.
The earliest case which companysidered the meaning of s. 31 3 , was Jagarnath Therani v. Commissioner of Income tax decided by the Patna High Court.
54 of 1957.
revenue account.
1 The Appellate Assistant Commissioner shall fix a day and place for the bearing of the appeal, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing.
