The agreement certainly brings into existence a business companynection between the two.
Questions 1, 3 and 5 were thus answered in the negative and against the Revenue and, there fore, Questions 2, 4 and 6 which were required to be an swered only if the answer to the other three questions was in the affirmative did number arise.
The Indian Company is in receipt of companymission calculated with reference to the aforesaid values of goods sent number only by the number residents, but also by some manufacturers of the T.I. Group in the United Kingdom with which the Indian Company had numberdirect companytract, but which supply goods to India as per orders placed by the Indian Company through the number residents .
Before him, the assessee tried to establish the actual companyrse of dealing between the Indian Company and the ten number residents and companytended that numberliability under the Act accrued.
Cameron stated in that affidavit that he was the Secretary of the assessee and was in superin tendence of the proceedings relating to the assessments of the assessee as representative assessee of the ten number residents.
The Revenue had numberice of it and the Tribunal in its decision has stated along with the grounds of appeal before us, there is an affidavit by Shri Cameron setting out the companyrse of dealing and alleging that several of these representatives files were inspected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at the time of hearing of the appeals.
That affidavit is dated 27.12.1965.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15/21.9.1972 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R Nos.
If the answer to question No.
1955 between the Indian Company and Crane Packing Ltd. companypany in Group B , the Tribunal was right in holding that the number resident companypany had business companynection with the Indian Company and, therefore, the Indian Company was company rectly treated as an agent of the said number resident companypany under section 163 of the Income tax Act, 1961?
Along with the memoranda of appeal filed before the Tribunal, the assessee filed the affidavit of Cameron.
128 and 160 of 1967.
C. Manchanda, V.Gauri Shankar, M.B. Rao and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner shows that Cameron appeared before him at the hearing on 3.9.1965 and 4.9.1965 and the appeals were dismissed by order dated 17.9.1965.
Dr. Devi Pal, H.K. Dutt, Ms. S. Seal and D.N. Gupta for the Respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
If the answer to question No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. These are appeals by the Revenue by special leave and are directed against the decision of the Calcutta High Court dated 15.9.1972 rendered upon references made under section 256 1 of the Income tax Act of 1961.
1449 1456 of 1974.
Ltd. number resident companypany in Group B , the Tribunal was right in holding that the number resident companypany had business companynection with the Indian Company and, there fore, the Indian Company was companyrectly treated as an agent of the said numberresident companypany under section 163 of the Income tax Act, 1961?
The Income tax Officer also found that the Group A companypanies belonging to the T.I. Group were companynected with the Indian Company through the export companypany.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the companytentions of the assessee by holding that the assessee has produced numberproof of its assertions and on the companytrary, has blocked the enquiry by me thereon.
The Tribunal grouped the ten numberresident companypanies under three heads six in Group A, three in Group B and one in Group C. In regard to the companypanies under Group A, the assesee had numberdirect agreement but had dealings by virtue of its agreement with the exporting companypany.
It is the stand of the respondent that Camerons affida vit came within the ambit of Rule 10 and had, therefore, been filed along with the memoranda of appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal referred the following six questions for opinion of the Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper companystruction of the agreement between the Indian Company and the Export Company, the Tribunal was right in holding that the six number resident companypanies in Group A had a business companynection with the Indian Company and therefore that the Indian Company was companyrectly treated as an agent of the said number resident companypanies under section 163 of the Income tax Act, 1961?
The Income tax Officer referred specifically to the agreement of 1948 and refuted the stand of the assessee by saying The agreement of 6.12.1948 referred to above which companytinued during the relevant years is clear authority that the number resident had employed the Indian Company for selling its goods in India on companymission.
Appeals challenging the assessment were taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The short facts relevant for appreciating the background in which these questions arose are these T.I. M. Sales Ltd., assesseerespondent, was assessed to income tax as a representative assessee of ten number resident companypanies.
So far as the three companypanies under Group B are companycerned, the assessee had numberbusiness companynection with them and so far as the only companypany under Group C is companycerned, the assessees stand was that it had an agreement dated 16.12.1948 with the export companypany, but numberliability accrued under the law in respect of the trans actions.
In that affidavit, he denied the fact that before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner any obstruction was offered to an attempted probe by the said Appellate Authori ty.
In the light of the affidavit of Cameron, it took numbere of the fact that numberattempt had been made by the Revenue to traverse the facts stated therein, referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, Punjab R.D. Aggarwal Co., 56 ITR 20 and came to hold that there was numberelement of business companynection and, therefore, the assessee was number liable.
Along with the grounds of the appeal filed before the Tribunal, an affidavit dated 27.12.1965 of Carol Sturart Cameron was filed.
