In Ogale Glass Works case 4 , the Bombay High Court asked for a supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal as to whether there was any express request by the assessee that the cheque should be sent by post, and held that as there was numbersuch express request, the receipt of the money was number where the cheque was posted but at the place where the money was received.
3 1952 21 I.T.R. 82.
These cheques were received in Jaipur.
The assessee then applied for a reference to the High Court under s. 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, and by its order dated December 10, 1952, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for the decision of the High Court Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the profits and gains in respect of the sales made to the Government of India were received by the assessee in the taxable territories ?
They had formed this partnership in June, 1940, for the manufacture and sale of blankets, felts and other woollen articles.
Jaipur by the assessee, and payment was by cheques which were received at Jaipur and were endorsed in favour of the joint Hindu family, which acted as the assessees bankers.
These views found further amplification, and were applied in two other cases by the Bombay If high Court.
In both these cases, it was held that unless the payee expressly companystituted the post office as his agent, the mere posting of the cheque did number companystitute the post office the agent of the payee, and that the amount of the cheque was also received at the place where the cheque was received.
10 of 1949 of the Bombay H. C. decided on September 17, 1951.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 24, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Reference No.
This companytention was number accepted by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi.
They are Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax 3 and Ogale Glass Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax 4 .
Two of them are companyarceners of a joint Hindu family, and the third is a stranger.
The companytention of the assessee was that this income was received at Jaipur outside the then taxable territories.
17,45,336 0 0 were assessed as its income by the Income tax Officer, Contractors Circle, New Delhi.
3 of 1953.
A deed of partnership was also executed on March 16, 1944.
In Sir Sobha Singh v. Commissioner of Income tax 2 , it was held by the Punjab High Court that where cheques were given to a bank for purposes of companylection, the receipt of the money was at the place where the bank on which the cheques were drawn was situated.
The assessee, Messrs. S. Zoraster Co., Jaipur, companysists of three partners.
1 1950 18 I.T.R. 407.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Later, the principle was extended still further by this Court in Jagdish Mills case 3 .
Cheques in payment for supplies to Government were sent from British India to Bhavnagar.
The assessee entered into companytracts with Government for the sup ply of goods, and in the assessment year 1942 43, Rs.
August 17.
30 of 1958.
The special leave granted by this Court is limited to the question whether the High Court had jurisdiction in this case to call for the supplemental statement.
Gopal Singh, for the appellants.
N. Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. This appeal, by special leave of this Court, is against the judgment and order dated March 24, 1955, of the Punjab High Court by which the High Court, purporting to act under s. 66 4 of the Indian Income tax Act, called for a supplemental statement of the case from the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
2 1950 18 I.T.R. 998.
10,80,658 0 0 and in the assessment year 1943 44, Rs.
In Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax 3 , it was held that the mere posting of the cheque in Delhi was number tantamount to the receipt of the cheque in Delhi, because the payee had number requested the Government to send the cheque by post.
The supplies to Government were made for.
In the latter case, the Department had to deal with a number resident Company which, at all material times, was situate at Bhavnagar, one of the Indian States.
Jagdish Mills case 3 and the New Jehangir Vakil Mills case 4 were decided by this Court on the same day.
3 1960 1 S.C.R. 236.
