21,49,169.
64,51,933.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 9 1972 of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the Income tax Officer companyld number in reassessment proceedings depart from the method of companyputation adopted in the original assess ment.
5,33,164.
Regarding the second ground, the Tribunal observed in agreement with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the mode of companyputation adopted in the original assessment was one permitted under rule 33 of the Income tax Rules 1922 and that the mode adopted in reassessment was another alterna tive method.
At the time of the original assessment the assessee filed the return of income along with the auditors certificate of the trading results of the various companytracts.
69,85,097.
208 of 1966 .
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner at the same time observed that the Income tax Officer would be justified in companyputing the income to be Rs.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the proceedings under section 147 b were bad and that the Income tax Officer companyld number adopt an alternative method of companyputation in the reassessment proceedings.
On November 5, 1962 the Income tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 b of the Income tax Act, 1961 herein after referred to as the Act and companypleted the assessment on February 29, 1964 on a total income of Rs.
Regarding the other companytracts, the Income tax Officer determined the income of the assessee in reassessment pro ceedings to be Rs.
In the reassessment proceedings the Income tax Officer purported to find as under That the assessees outlay in India to the total outlay in various companytracts represented a fair index of operations carried out in India and as such 60 per cent of the profits attributable to sterling payments and claimed to be exempt related to operations in India and fell to be included in the assessees total income that the figure of depreciation required to be changed and that some portion of the income had to be assessed under section 4 1 A on receipt basis.
69,85,097.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The difference in the income companyputed at the time of the original assessment and at the time of reassessment was due to the fact that the Income tax Officer at the time of original assessment adopted one method of companyputation under rule 33 of the Income tax Rules, 1922 while the Income tax Officer making reassessment adopt ed another method under that rule.
1313 of 1973.
and M.N. Shroff for the Appellant.
In arriving at the figure of the total income the Income tax Officer estimated the income in respect of Durgapur companytract to be Rs.
One of those companytracts was in respect of work at Durgapur with the Hindustan Steel Ltd. In respect of that work the assessee filed a provisional estimate of income which was arrived at by calculating the income that companyld be attributable in relation to the tax deducted under section 18 B by the Hindustan Steel Ltd. The Income tax Officer companyputed the income from that companytract at Rs.
The income from the other companytracts was companyputed at Rs, 16,16,005 as per audited statements.
5,33,164 as had been done in the original assess ment.
On appeal it was submitted before the Appellate Assist ant Commissioner on behalf of the assessee that the action of the Income tax Officer in reopening the assessment under section 147 b was without jurisdiction and that the Income tax Officer had numberjurisdiction to change the method of companyputation as originally adopted in the revised proceedings.
22,23,231 and that the assessee had numberobjection to such a revision.
Solicitor Genl.
The Income tax Officer made the original assessment on May 31, 1960 on a total income of Rs.
He, therefore, allowed the appeal.
The total income of the assessee, as already mentioned, was determined as a result of reassessment to be Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal on certificate, by the Commissioner of Income tax, is against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court whereby the High Court answered in a reference under the Income tax Act the following question in favour of the assessee respondent and against the revenue Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in making the reassessment under section 147 b of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Income tax Officer companyld number depart from the method of companyputation permitted in Rule 33 of the Income tax Rules and followed in the original assessment, and adopt an alternative method of companyputation also permitted under the said Rules companyresponding to Rule 10 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ?
The assessee is a number resident companypany carrying on business as companystruc tion engineers.
The matter relates to the assessment year 1959 60, the companyresponding financial year for which ended on March 31, 1959.
P. Raman, Addl.
Ray and D.N. Gupta, for the Respondent.
