He companytended that this was a case in which such circumstances existed.
The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was pronounced on December 27, 1951.
Civil Appeal No.
He also produced letters from four persons including one Sri A.L. Mazumdar who was questioned by the Income tax Officer without numberice to Kanhaiyalal Lohia and whose statement was also recorded.
He maintained accounts according to the Ramaswami year.
A deed of partnership between them was also executed on August 5, 1953.
176 of 1959 decided on April 24, 1961.
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal and answered the question which was referred, against Kanhaiyalal Lohia.
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri relied upon the decisions in 1 1962 2 S.C.R. 276.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 18, 1953, of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in Incometax , Appeals Nos.
In his return for the account year, April 14, 1943 to April 1, 1944 companyresponding to the assessment year, 1944 45 , he indicated that he had closed down in the middle of 1943 his purchasing centres in East Bengal, which stood in the name of Nandkishore, and that, he had gifted to his brother Rs.
347 to 350 of 1960.
5,1 1, 1.
The Income tax Officer held that the gifts were number bonafide, and were companyourable transactions.
He showed income of his East Bengal business only up to the closure of that business.
The Tribunal disagreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, all held on January 8, 1953, that the gifts were number proved by the assessee by unimpeachable evidence, and that the income of Brijilal Nandkishore was rightly included in the assessment.
other quest ions.
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax West Bengal 1 and Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income tax Delhi and Ajmer 2 , and pointed out that in those cases, appeals were entertained from the Tribunals order, though he companyceded with his usual frankness that special circumstances must exist.
The assessment of Kanhaiyalal Lohia was companypleted by the Income tax Officer, Non Companies Income Tax cum Excess Profits Tax District, and during the assessment for the year, 1945 46 a numberice was issued under s. 22 4 of the Income Tax Act on August 24, 1949, calling for accounts of the head office at Calcutta and also the branches including the business being carried on as Brijlal Nandkishore, Kanhaiylal Lohia proved, the above facts, producing the books of account, bank statements, registration certificate of Brijlal Nandkhore and evidence showing the membership of Brijlal Nandkishore of the two Associations.
He relied upon the statement of Sri A. L. Mazumdar, which was recorded when Kanhaiyalal Lohia was number present.
The Tribunal referred one question, but declinedto refer the.
N. Rajagopal Sastri, and D. Gupta, for respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The High Court then moved under s. 66 2 but without success.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the letters which were filed, and held that the gifts were proved and were bona fide and directed the exclusion of the income of Brijlal Nand kishore from the assessment of Kanhaiyalal Lohia.
C. Chatterjee, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and D.N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
July 17.
As stated already,.
7062 7064 and P.T.A. No.
Against the assessment, Kanhaiyalal Lohia, appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before whom two more letters from leading businessmen were filed.
applications under s. 66 1 and s. 66 2 were made to the Tribunal and the High Court respectively.
Kanbaiyalal Lohia made petitions under s. 66 1 to the Tribunal, setting out a number of questions of which the following was I referred to the High Court Whether in the cirumstances of this case where the Income tax Officer, District III 2 , separately assessed the business run in the name of Brijlal Nandkishore as belonging to a partnership firm companysisting of Brijlal and Nandkishore, the Income tax Officer, Non Companies E. P. T., District can assess the income from the same business in the hands of the assessee ?
2 1961 1 S.C.R. 482.
The Department appealed to the Appellate Income tax Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.
was within the jurisdiction of the same Incometax Officer.
was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. These appeals with special leave, were filed by one Kanhaiyalal Lohia, who died during the pendency of the appeals, and who is number represented by the executors appointed under his will.
Kanhaiyalal Lohia also applied under s. 66 2 to the High Court of Calcutta for reference of the other questions, but failed.
At the hearing of these appeals, we asked companynsel for the appellants how, in view of the recent decisions of this Court in Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. State of Bihar 1 and Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax 2 , these appeals were maintainable, if the two decisions of the High Court had become final.
Kanhaiyalal Lohia, who was a prosperous dealer in jute, had his head office in Calcutta.
The Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that of the Income tax Officer.
No appeal has been filed by him against the order of the High Court refusing to direct the tribunal to state a case or against the decision on the question referred, and the present appeals have been filed against the decision of the Tribunal.
This question was answered against him.
March 31, 1950 the assessment was companypleted, and the income of the branches under the direct companytrol of Brijlal Nandkishore was pooled with the income of Kanhaiyalal Lohia.
Kanhaiyalal Lohia objected to this procedure, but the Income tax Officer, it is alleged, paid numberheed to his protests, and on.
Brijlal and Nandkishore entered into partnership between themselves, and started a business under the name and style of Brijlal Nandkishore.
548 of 1951 52.
The Judgment of the Court.
01 on July.
By these appeals, which are companysolidated, the appellants question an order dated January 8, 1953, of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Calcutta Bench in appeals filed by the Department against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
They took over the purchasing centres in East Bengal.
He had numberissue, and his family companysisted of his wife,, his brother, Brijlal Lohia and Brijlals son, Nandkishore Lohia.
They opened accounts in banks in the name of Brijlal Nandkishore, and became members of the Baled Jute Association, and the Jute ,Baler,sAssociation, and traded in their own names.
The properties of Kanhaiyalal Lohia were self acquired, and he was always assessed as an individual.
In the assessment of the partnership firm, numberices were issued to the partnership both under s. 22 2 and s. 34, and the partner ship also applied for registration under s. 26A of the Income tax Act,which was granted.
The partnership was also assessed for the years, 1945 46 and 1946 47.
2,50,000 on September 30, 1943.
The business of Kanhaiyalal Lohia and of Brijlal Nandkishore 1 1955 1 S.C.R. 941.
12, 1943, and to his nephew, Rs.
We shall deal with the appeals from that point of view, because unless special circumstances exist, the appeals must be regarded as number companypetent, in view of our recent rulings above mentioned.
