For the assessment years 1944 1945 and 1946 47 the appellant disclosed a turnover of Rs.
The appellant applied to the Tribunal under s. 66 1 of the Act for stating a case to the High Court for its decision on the following two points Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Department was right in acting under the proviso to section 13 of the Act in th absence of a finding that income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced from the books produced or that numbermethod of accounting has been regularly employed.
Thus he raised the turnover to Rs.
5,98,728 respectively and the gross profits rates were 10.7 per cent and 8.7 per cent respectively.
As a matter of fact, the Income tax Officer who also rejected the accounts of the appellant had also given similar reasons.
On November 21, 1951, the appellant applied to the of Tribunal for stating a case under s. 66 1 on the following four questions Whether under the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 13 of the Indian Income tax Act applies to the case.
Chowdhuri, N. A. Palkhivala and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated September 14, 1951, of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in I.T.A. No.
All the six appeals were heard together and a companymon question arises whether the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying the proviso to s. 13 of the Income Tax Act.
218, 219 and 221 of 1955 that the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was number justified in applying the proviso to s. 13 and assuming that the proviso did apply then the percentage worked out was unjustified and had been arrived at by relying upon material which the appellant had numberopportunity to meet and therefore the case fell within the rule in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal 1 where a similar violation of the fundamental rule of natural justices.e.,
1960 February 3.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Department had sufficient materials before it to justify the rates of 12 1/2 per cent and 10 per cent gross profits on the total turnover on the ground that the rates worked out by the figures submitted by the assessee work out at a lesser figure.
and Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated September, 30, 1953, of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in I.T.A. Nos.
7840 of 1952 53 and E.P.T.A. Nos.
The Excess Profits tax for the chargeable accounting period from February 10, 1942 to January 16, 1943, was decided on the basis of the Income tax assessment for the year 1943 44.
to rebut such material was held to be a ground for interference with the order of the Tribunal.
17,74,825 and a gross profit of Rs.
The Income tax Officer, by his order dated March 20, 1948, rejected the accounts and estimated the gross profit by adding back Rs.
On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the order of the Income tax Officer was companyfirmed.
In the other appeals also the companyrse of proceedings before the Income tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was the same.
218 of 1955 and 219 to 223 of 1955.
the information upon which the Tribunal relied was number disclosed to the assessee and numberopportunity was given to him 1 1955 I S.C.R. 941.
It was companytended by the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos.
It held that companyrect profit for the year under assessment companyld number be deduced from the books produced by the appellant.
The appellant is a resident and ordinarily resident in India and carried on extensive trade in Colombo in grains, folder, gram and other food stuffs for cattle and poultry.
This application was dismissed by the High Court on February 26, 1953.
Against this order of the appellant applied for special leave to appeal and, by leave of this Court, amended the petition so as to make it an appeal against the order of the High Court as well as the order of the Tribunal dated September 14, 1951.
10,35,748 and Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
3,00,000 giving a profit of 15 per cent on the estimated turnover.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal by its order dated September 14, 1951, after pointing out various defects, rejected the account books but accepted the appellants turnover and companyputed the profits at 15 per cent on grains imported from India and 121 per cent on grains purchased in Ceylon.
Civil Appeals Nos.
20,00,000 and the gross income to Rs.
For the two previous assessment years the appellants gross profits were 9 per cent and 8 per cent respectively.
2,38,831 to the returned income.
The appellant in each of the appeals is the assessee and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras.
The appellant then applied to the High Court of Madras under s. 66 2 of the Act on the same four questions of law.
Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. In these six appeals the companymon question raised is whether the proviso to s. 13 of the Income tax Act is applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases.
But the Tribunal, by its order dated February 12, 1950, held that numberquestion of law arose and therefore declined to state a case and thus rejected the application.
It was number the basis on which the companyclusion was formed number the basis on which the percentage was arrived at.
218 of 1955 arises out of the assessment for the year 1943 1944.
219 to 223 relate to the assessment years 1944 1945, 1946 1947 and for the chargeable accounting periods from January 1943 to February 1944, and from February 1945 to February 1946.
63,217 which is about 3.5 per cent.
They are therefore disposed of by one judgment.
3158 of 1949 50.
300, 301 and 302 of 1952 53.
For the assessment year 1943 1944 the appellant showed a turnover of Rs.
As the books of accounts in regard to these years also were rejected, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal applied s. 13 and estimated the gross profit rates at 12 1/2 per cent and 10 per cent for the respective years.
The appellant did number apply to the High Court under s. 66 2 of the Income Tax Act but obtained special leave from this Court against the order of the Tribunal by which it applied the proviso to s. 13 of the Income Tax Act.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, Ganapathi lyer and D. Gupta for the respondent.
