For the assessment year 1941 42 the Income tax Officer calculated the assessees accrued foreign income as Rs.
The companytention was that the Appellate Tribunal had numberjurisdiction in law to entertain, companysider and pass the order which it did on the miscellaneous application seeing that it was neither an appeal under section 33 of the Income tax Act number companyld it be regarded as a rectification under section 35 of any mistake companymitted by the Bench.
67,218 and income from other sources the Incometax Officer calculated Rs.
13,541 to Rs.
24,175 on account of the bad debt the Singapore income came down to Rs.
29,403 being the income from Maubin made up the total accrued income of Rs.
84,352 the Income tax Officer allocated Rs.
The last mentioned order having been served on the Commissioner of Income tax, Madras, on March 8, 1946, the latter on May 1, 1946, made an application before the Appellate Tribunal under section 66 1 of the Act and prayed that three questions formulated by him in his petition should be referred to the High companyrt.
26,953 and after deducting Rs.
The two appeals were thereafter companysolidated and have companye up before us for final disposal.
This order was served on the Commissioner shortly thereafter.
After deducting out of this amount Rs.
The respondent who is a Nattukotai Chettiar had, his headquarters at Karaikudi in India and also carried on his money lending business at branches at Maubin, Kualalumpur and Singapore.
The assessee then brought a miscellaneous application to the Appellate Tribunal.
66,765.
The Commissioner of Incometax thereafter applied for and obtained leave to appeal to this Court from the decisions in both the references and obtained such leave on his undertaking to pay the companyts of the assessee in any event.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 11th January, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Cases Referred Nos.
10,409.
80 of 1946.
It appears that pursuant to an order made by the High Court on March 30,1948, on the application of the Commissioner of Income tax under section 66 2 of the Act the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court If the answer to the question already referred to the High Court by the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 23rd August, 1946, is in the affirmative,, whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the recomputation made by the Income tax Officer pursuant to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in R.A.A. No.
On the basis of this foreign income together with other income the Income tax Officer.
87,218.
4,500 was deducted on account of unremitted profits of Maubin under the 3rd proviso to section 4 1 of the Act, leaving a balance of Rs.
The matter came back before the Income tax Officer on September 26, 1945.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated May 25, 1942, allowed some of the several objections but disallowed the items of replantation expenses and ba debt and reduced the assessment to Rs.
Krishnamachariar for the respondent.
He also allocated Rs.
finding of the Income tax Officer that the sum of Rs.
22,802 6 0 and after giving credit for certain amounts, found Rs.
This reference came to be numbered as Case Referred No.
This amount the Income tax Officer companysidered as remittances out of earlier years unassessed income and held it to be asses.
75,806.
On October 5, 1944, an application was made to the Tribunal by the Income tax Officer under section 35 to companyrect a statement companytained in the statement of facts in the order.
13,541 as the alleged unassessed foreign income of earlier years remitted to India during the year of account the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
53 Madras of 1942 43 was valid and companyrect.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, G. N. Joshi and P. A. Mehta, with him for the appellant.
29,403 from Maubin and Rs.
10 and 10 A of 1952.
Out of the remittances the Income tax Officer allocated Rs.
The Appellate Tribunal made this further reference on July 19, 1948, which came to be numbered as Case Referred No.
More than 60 days after the date of the service on him of the order of July 11, 1944, to wit on October 7, 1944, the Commissioner made an application under section 66 1 of the Act requiring the Tribunal to refer to the High Court the question as to the companyrectness of its decision embodied in the order of July 11, 1944.
The Appellate Tribunal took the view that although numberspecific provision was made in the Act by which it companyld give effect to its order or explain any ambiguity in such an order by a later order in any miscellaneous application filed by any party, such power, nevertheless, was inherent in the Tribunal.
38 of 1948.
22,548.
778 on account of replantation expenses the Kualalumpur income was reduced to Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Deducting Rs.
80 of 1946 and 38 of 1948.
37,362 against the totarl accrued income of Kualalumpur and Singapore.
The result was that the appeal was partly allowed.
21,211 14 0 as the balance due which by his order dated September 26, 1945, was made payable in equal moiety on or before September 30, 1947, and March 31, 1948.
Out of the total remittances of Rs.
He also had income from properties at Maubin and Singapore.
The facts are shortly as follows.
He, however, did number issue any numberice of demand under section 29 of the Act.
The two referred cases came up for companysideration before a Bench of the Madras High Court and it was held that the reference under section 66 1 was incompetent in view of the earlier decision of that Court mentioned above which they felt to be binding on them and accordingly the Bench declined to answer the questions.
13,541 was to be assessed as untaxed profits of earlier years remitted to India in the accounting year did number arise in the companyrse of giving effect to the Appellate Tribunals order and by its order dated February 20, 1946, cancelled that finding and directed the Income tax Officer to revise the companyputation accordingly.
7,000 towards the accrued income of Rs.
7,900 to the accrued income of Maubin and Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J. These two companysolidated appeals are directed against the Judgment and order made on January 11, 1950 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in References No.
recalculated the amount of income tax, super tax and surcharges thereon at Rs.
91,718.
62,315 to those of Kualalumpur and Singapore and the balance of Rs.
Sevugan alias Manickavasagam Chettiar 1 held that the references were incompetent and accordingly refused to answer the questions raised therein.
The Income tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee to deductions under several heads.
23,266 8 0 to be due by the assessee on account of income tax, super tax and surcharges thereon and by his assessment order dated January 31, 1942, made this amount payable on or before February 25, 1942.
Out of this amount Rs.
24,549 as remittances out of assessed profits of previous years, leaving a balance of Rs.
able to tax.
62,265 being the net accrued income of the year from Maubin, Kualalumpur and Singapore, the Income tax Officer arrived at the total foreign income of Rs.
Being aggrieved by the inclusion of Rs.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the.
Accordingly the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated November 19, 1945, declined to admit the appeal.
62,265.
He, however, expressed the view that the assessees remedy might lie in a miscellaneous application to the Tribunal companyplaining that the Income tax Officer had either misconstrued or had number given effect to the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
The assessee took further appeal before the appellate Tribunal against the disallowance of the several claims by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner including the two items mentioned above.
13,541.
On the basis of the total foreign income of Rs.
34,584 at Singapore, in all Rs.
The Tribunal declined to refer the other questions formulated by the Commissioner.
The assessee preferred an 1 1948 16 I.T.R. 59 1948 1 M.L.J. 157 A.I.R. 1948 Mad, 418 appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commsioner against the disallowance of the several items of his claim including the claim for replantation expenses amounting to498incurred at Kualalumpur and a bad debt of 15,472 at Singapore.
December22.
M. Sm.
14,137 to the taxed income of earlier years.
38 of 1948 under section 66 of the Indian Income tax Act whereby the High Court relying on its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income tax, Madras v. B. Rm.
80 of 1946 and No.
After adding Rs.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was number satisfied that the assessee had any right of appeal under section 30 of the Act for there had been numberassessment under section 23 and numbernotice of demand had been served on the assessee under section 29 of the Act.
4,500 allowed under the 3rd proviso to section 4 1 of the Act, the Income tax Officer companyputed the total assessable foreign income at Rs.
These two reduced amounts together with Rs.
27,731 at Kualalumpur and Rs.
29,403 at Maubin, Rs.
