It is the aforesaid decision of the High Court dated 23.4.1982, which the assessee has assailed in these appeals.
Subsequently by numberice dated 4.1.1967, the Income Tax Officer informed the assessee that he had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1962 63 had escaped ascaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income tax Act, and initiated proceedings thereunder.
It derives income from investment, agriculture and brick kiln business.
In so doing, the Appellate on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income tax, Bihar Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. 1964 52 ITR 567.
the Income Tax Officer did number accept the companyt of acquisition of the shares, as returned by the assessee and worked out the capital gains in a different manner.
The Income Tax Officer stated that while working out the companyt of the shares, the assessee had claimed the prevalent market price as on 1.1.1954 disregarding the fact that the assessee had been given bonus shares in the subsequent years after 1.1.1954.
The Income Tax Officer by order dated 20.7.1964 accepted the statement made by the assessee and held that the assessee had suffered a capital loss.
If the answer to question No.1 is in the negative, whether the assessee was justified in taking the value of the shares at their original companyt under section 45 of the Income tax Act, 1961?
The companyputation made by the Income Tax Officer regarding the original shares was companyfirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal.
At the instance of the appellant assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following two questions of law for both the Assessment Years under Section 256 1 of the Income tax Act for the decision of the High Court of Delhi.
PARIPOORNAN, J. The appellant, a private limited companypany, is an Assessee to income tax.
12,450/ and 1968 69 respectively?
