The Income tax Officer having thus satisfied himself about ,the genuineness of the assessees explanation, companydoned the default in filing the return and dropped the proceedings taken against the companypany under section 28 3 of the Act.
It seems that numberfurther action in the matter was taken by the department till the year 1947.
This request was, however, refused and assessment was companypleted on the 20th March, 1948.
In view of the higher companyts of establishment, I take it that the rate of about 40, i.e., near about the rate disclosed in 1942 accounts, should have been maintained.
On that date the Chief Accounts Officer of the companypany appeared before the Income tax Officer and asked for further time till the middle of the following week for furnishing the requisite particulars.
The proceedings having been revived the appellant companypany furnished the return of its income for the assessment year 1944 45 on the 16th March, 1948.
I companyclude that full amount of sales have number been accounted for.
36 lakhs for unaccounted sales.
4658 of 1948 49 and E.P.T.A. No.
He also made a request to the companyrt to allow him, access to the books of account.
16th day of January, 1950, of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta in Income tax Appeal No.
It may be mentioned that in the return the companypany had disclosed a gross profit of 28 per cent,.
It is number clear from either of these judgments on what material these estimates were based.
on sales amounting to Rs.
On receipt of the return the Income tax Officer issued a numberice under section 23 2 of the Act calling upon the companypany to supply further information on a number of points and to prepare certain statements indicated in the numberice.
The companyrt, however, neither acceded to the demand that books of account be made available to the assesse number did it permit the Income tax Officer to have access to them.
It is expected that actually the rate of gross profit should have been higher this year.
The questions which were submitted to the Tribunal.
The establishment expenses, however, during that year were in the sum of Rs.
This requisition had to be companyplied with by the 19th March, 1948.
1,78,96,122.
This application was summarily rejected.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal, the assessee wanted the Tribunal to state a case and refer to the High Court for its decision ten questions of law.
A number of other causes were mentioned by the assessee for the low rate of profit during the relevant period but the Income tax Officer took numbernotice of them.
In order to, ascertain whether the explanation furnished by the assessee was genuine, the Income tax Officer made inquiries from the companyrt companycerned about this matter.
This return, however, was number a companyplete document as without the assistance of the books the profits companyld number be companyputed according to the ,provisions of law.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the.
217 of 1953.
I add back the Rs.
1, 15,69,582, disclosing a gross profit of 41 percent.
It appears that the assessee then applied to the High Court under section 66 2 of the Act for the issue of a mandamus to the Tribunal directing it to refer to the High Court the very same questions of law which it had refused to refer.
The other points raised in the memorandum of appeal regarding the validity or the companyrectness of the procedure of assess ment had been abandoned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
15,94,101, while during the accounting year relevant to the year under assessment these had gone up to Rs.
C. Chatterjee and Veda Vyas, S. K. Kapoor and Ganpat Rai, with them for the appellant.
On or about the 29th November the companynsel for the appellant requested that he should be allowed time till Saturday the 3rd of December to file the above information and time for this purpose was allowed to him.
Expenses on companyton and fuel shows that production was undoubtedly higher whereas it is found that the gross profit disclosed by this companypany is low.
During that year the companypany requested the department toreador the proceedings.
Before the expiry of the due date for filing the return the account books of the appellant companypany together with the documents relevant to the accounts, were taken into custody by the Sub Divisional Officer, Narayanganj and it is alleged that these remained in the custody of the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Magistrate till January, 1950, when they were handed back to the appellant.
The excess profits assessment was also made final on the 23rd March, 1948.
An officer of the companypany appeared before the Income tax Officer and explained the cause for this default.
34,74,735 on account of labour troubles.
October 29.
On the 28th of July, 1944, the Income tax Officer issued a numberice to it under section 22 2 of the Indian Income tax Act calling upon it to file the return of its income for the assessment year 1944 45 account year being 1943 44 .
On this the appellant also wanted to be allowed to produce information regarding the gross profit rates shown or assessed by other similar companyton mills, and he was also allowed to produce information on the point.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India G. N. Joshi, with him for the respondent.
It seems that Dr. Pal who represented the assessee before the Tribunal had only argued one question namely, whether the estimate of profit made by the Income tax Officer was excessive or whether it was justified on the material on the record.
The total amount of sales in the year 1942 was of the amount of Rs.
It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of companyton yarn and piece goods.
The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal against these decisions.
This request was refused, and a show cause numberice was issued under section 28 3 of the Act calling upon the appellant companypany why penalty should number be imposed upon it for its failure to file the return.
In this situation the assessee pleaded for extension of time to furnish the return.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J. The appellant is a public limited joint stock companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1915, with its registered office at Calcutta.
1137 of 1948 49.
