However, the said cheques were drawn on the Reserve Bank of India, at Bombay.
In respect of the goods supplied by the said firm, the Government of India paid the price by cheques.
The assessee firm, as well as the joint family firm, were both situated in Jaipur, which was outside the taxable territories at the relevant period.
The assessee challenged this order of the High Court calling for a supplementary statement in an appeal before this Court.
The Reference was numbered as Civil Reference Case No.
Before the learned Judges, the Revenue companytended that the assessee must be companysidered to have received the amounts companyered by the cheques in the taxable territories on.
In the grounds of appeal, in particular, it was stated that the High Court has number properly interpreted the decisions of this Court and that the High Court further erred in holding that there was numberproof as to how the cheques were received by the assessee in Jaipur.
Supreme Court Application No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 21, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The assessee, through the agency of the family firm, sent those cheques to Bombay for companylection and realised the amounts due under the cheques at Bombay.
By order dated July 15, 1968, the High Court granted the certificates that the cases are fit for appeal to this Court.
Regarding the first ground the learned Judges held that it has been companyvincingly negatived by the learned Judges, who dealt with the reference on the authority of the decisions of this Court.
7 of 1961.
The question of law, referred for the opinion of the High Court under S. 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act was as follows Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the profits and gains in respect of the sales to the Government of India, were received by the assessee in the taxable territories.
95 of 1967 related to the assessment year 1942 43 and No.
96 of 1967 related to the assessment year 1943 44.
Another ground was taken that the evidence on record establishes that the cheques were issued and sent to the assessee at his request by post.
95 and 96 of 1967 before the High Court for grant of certificates declaring the cases to be a fit one for appeal to this Court.
The reference related to the assessment years 1942 43 and 1943 44.
After a reference to certain decisions of this Court, the High Court held that the mere fact that the cheques were realised at Bombay is of numberconsequence.
The High Court, in its order under attack, numbered the findings recorded by the Tribunal,namely, that the cheques were received by the assessee at Jaipur, but companylected at Bombay, and that it is number established how the cheques were sent to the assessee by the Government of India.
Appellate Tribunal, on March 18, 1961 submitted to the High Court a supplementary statement.
two alternative grounds 1 that the payments by cheques made by the Government of India from Delhi to the assessee at Jaipur were number made at Jaipur where the cheques were received by the assessee but at Bombay where the cheques were cashed, or 2 the cheques were posted by the Government of India at Delhi to the address of the assessee at Jaipur and as the post office acted as an agent of the assessee in receiving cheques the payment was made at Delhi and number at Jaipur.
The decision of this Court is reported in Zoraster Co. v. Commissioner of Income tax 1 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
7 of 1961.
The assessee had business dealings with the Government of India.
The Appellate Tribunal further found that the assessee had given a direction to pay by cheques and that apart from this there was numberother material on record to show any direction given by the assessee regarding the mode of dispatch of cheques.
There is a reference to the decisions of this Court, as well as the finding recorded by the High Court when answering the reference.
The said family had got its own business firm known also by the name of the assessee, M s. Zoraster and Company.
Sohanmal and Mehtabchand are also the two companyarceners of a Hindu Undivided Family.
D. Karkhanis, Ram Lal, A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agra wala, for the respondent in both the appeals .
The Income tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
By its order dated August 17, 1960, this Court dismissed the said appeal.
After the decision of this Court, the.
7 of 1961.
The nature of the preliminary objection will be referred to by us in due companyrse.
The High Court answered the said question in favour of the assessee as follows On the facts and circumstances of the case, the profits and gains in respect of the sales, made to the Government of India, must be deemed to have been received by the assessee outside, the taxable territories.
2012 and 2013 of 1968.
H. Dhebar, Urmila Kapoor and P. L. Juneja, for the appellant in both the appeals .
When Mr. R. R. Dhebar, learned companynsel for the Revenue opened the appeals, a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. N. D. Karkhanis, learned companynsel for the assessee respondent that the certificates granted by the High Court are number proper and as such the appeals are number maintainable.
as well as the Appellate Tribunal held that as the amounts had been realised in Bombay, which is a taxable territory, the amounts companyered by the cheques were liable to tax under the Act.
On an application made by the assessee, the Appellate Tri burial made a Reference on December 10, 1952 to the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla.
The assessee respondent is a firm companysisting of three partners, namely, Sohanmal, Mehtab chand and Allahdin.
The case was renumbered in the High Court as Income tax Reference No.
The cheques in question were received by the assessee at Jaipur.
Regarding the second ground, that the cheques were posted by the Government at Delhi and that the post office acted as an agent of the assessee and therefore the amounts companyered by the cheques must be companysidered to have been received by the assessee at Delhi, which is a taxable territory, the learned Judges are of the view that the said companytention cannot be rejected on the plea that numbersubstantial question of law arises for companysideration by this Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. These two appeals, on certificate, by the Commissioner of Income tax Central New Delhi, are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated February 21, 1967 in Income tax Reference No.
3 of 1953 in the Punjab High Court.
As, in the opinion of the High Court, the Appellate Tribunal had number given a finding as to whether the cheques in question were sent to the assessee by post and whether the assessee had given any direction in that regard to the Government ,of India, by its order dated March 24, 1955, a supplementary statement was called for.
