38 of 1948.
The facts are shortly as follows.
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.
84,352 the Income tax Officer allocated Rs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax 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.
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.
Being aggrieved by the inclusion of Rs.
7,000 towards the accrued income of Rs.
34,584 at Singapore, in all Rs.
22,548.
The Tribunal accordingly thought that a point of law did arise and on August 23, 1946, referred the following question to the High Court, namely Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the order of the Bench dated 20th February, 1946, in the miscellaneous application is an appropriate order and is legally valid and passed within the jurisdiction and binding on the Income tax Officer.
The assessee took a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the disallowance of the several claims by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner including the two items mentioned above.
The Tribunal declined to refer the other questions formulated by the Commissioner.
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.
22,802 6 0 and after giving credit for certain amounts, found Rs.
80 of 1946.
The result was that the appeal was partly allowed.
80 of 1946 and No.
The assessee then brought a miscellaneous application to the Appellate Tribunal.
He also allocated Rs.
Deducting Rs.
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.
29,403 at Maubin, Rs.
He, however, did number issue any numberice of demand under section 29 of the Act.
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.
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.
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.
14,137 to the taxed income of earlier years.
The two appeals were thereafter companysolidated and have companye up before for final disposal.
29,403 being the income from Maubin made up the total accrued income of Rs.
4,500 was deducted on account of unremitted profits of Maubin under the 3rd proviso to section4 1 of the Act, leaving a balance of Rs.
This reference came to be numbered as case Referred No.
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.
37,362 against the total accrued income of Kualalumpur and Singapore.
13,541.
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 bad debt and reduced the assessment to 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 Court.
10,409.
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.
26,953 and after deducting 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.
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.
The Income tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee to deductions under several heads.
The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the disallowance of the several items of his claim including the claim for replantation expenses amounting to 498 incurred at Kualalumpur and a bad debt of 15,472 at Singapore.
53 Madras of 1942 43 was valid and companyrect.
These two reduced amounts together with Rs.
27,731 at Kualalumpur and Rs.
67,218 and income from other sources the Income tax Officer calculated Rs.
After adding Rs.
This amount the Income tax Officer companysidered as remittances out of earlier years unassessed income and held it to be assessable to tax.
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. R. Rm.
This order was served on the Commissioner shortly thereafter.
The Appellate Tribunal made this further reference on July 19, 1948, which came to be numbered as Case Referred No.
91,718.
24,175 on account of the bad debt the Singapore income came down to Rs.
24,549 as remittances out of assessed profits of previous years, leaving a balance of Rs.
Out of this amount Rs.
After deducting out of this amount Rs.
778 on account of replantation expenses the Kualalumpur income was reduced to Rs.
Out of the total remittances of Rs.
75,806.
87,218.
7,900 to the accrued income of Maubin and Rs.
The matter came back before the Income tax Officer on September 26, 1945.
66,765.
62,265.
29,403 from Maubin and Rs.
13,541 to Rs.
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.
Accordingly the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated November 19, 1945, declined to admit the appeal.
On the basis of this foreign income together with other income the Income tax Officer recalculated the amount of income tax, super tax and surcharges thereon at Rs.
On the basis of the total foreign income of Rs.
62,315 to those of Kualalumpur and Singapore and the balance of Rs.
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.
Out of the remittances the Income tax Officer allocated Rs.
For the assessment year 1941 42 the Income tax Officer calculated the assessees accrued foreign income as Rs.
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.
He also had income from properties at Maubin and Singapore.
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.
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.
