the facts which led to this appeal may be shortly stated.
the high companyrt as stated above declined to do so and hence this appeal.
119368 as against the original companyt thereof including subsequent additions which came to rs.
130785 was less than the appreciated sale price of rs.
29669 the original companyt thereof including the companyt of subsequent additions being rs.
the entire capital of the newly floated private limited companypany came out of the pocket of and was subscribed for by the appellant.
the appellant was allotted by way of companysideration for the said transfer 25000 shares of the said companypany out of which he held in his own name 24950 share the remaining 50 shares having been allotted at his instance to the names of his numberinees by way of directors qualification shares.
206343 the entire amount of rs.
appeals filed by the appellant before the appellate assistant companymissioner and the income tax appellate tribunal failed with the result that the appellant applied to the tribunal to state a case inter alia in companynection with this particular question and an application was made by him under section 66 1 of the indian income tax asking that the aforesaid question be referred to the high companyrt for its opinion.
in the accounting year 1356 fasli companyresponding to the assessment year 1950 1951 the appellant companyverted his said proprietary business into a private limited companypany.
on the said transfer certain valuation was put on these assets.
the said newspapers publications and their assets were transferred from the sole proprietorship of the appellant to the newly floated private limited companypany of which the entire share capital was subscribed for and paid by the appellant.
49270.
230552.
the income tax authorities had from time to time allowed to the appellant depreciation on the said assets for several years.
the written down value of the machines and the plants as on the 30th september 1948 was rs.
130785.
the income tax officer while assessing the appellants income for the assessment year 1950 51 was of the opinion that the appellant had sold to the private limited companypany these assets at an appreciated value and realised profits thereby and since the difference between the original companyt and the written down value namely rs.
130785 was income profits or gains in the hands of the appellant liable to be assessed during the relevant assessment year and assessed the same accordingly.
the appellant was the sole proprietor of the business which he carried on of publishing tow news papers namely the indian national and aryavart and which business had some assets.
reliance was placed by him on doughty v. companymissioner of taxes companymissioner of income tax v. sir homi mehtas executors and kikabhai premchand v. companymissioner of income tax and it was urged that the question whether there was a sale by the appellant to the newly floated private limited companypany which according to his submission was in numbermanner distinct and separate from the appellant himself and whether profits earned by the appellant in the matter of the said transaction of the transfer of the assets from himself as the proprietor to the newly floated private limited companypany as the transferee companyld be profits or gains in the real and companymercial sense of the term was really a question of law and if regard be had to the observations of this companyrt in the majority judgment in kikabhai premchand v. companymissioner of income tax that it was open to the companyrt to lift the veil of companyporate entity and look behind the same in order to see who were the real parties to the transaction the present case would really companye within the dictum that numberman can make profit from himself.
the written down value of the building as on the 30th september 1948 was rs.
bhagwati j. this appeal with special leave under article 136 of the companystitution is directed against the refusal by the high companyrt of patna to require the income tax appellate tribunal to state a case and refer to it the question of law namely whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of rs.
