1926 (10) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under S. 66 (3) of the Income-tax Act for mandamus to refer questions to the Court.
2. Power of the Income-tax Officer to require production of account books under S. 22 (4).
3. Duty of the Assistant Commissioner to examine proceedings under S. 23 (4).

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under S. 66 (3) of the Income-tax Act seeking a mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer specific questions to the Court for opinion. The applicant conducted business in Rawalpindi and Kashmir, and the Income-tax Officer requested a return of income under S. 22 (2) of the Act, along with the production of account books. While the applicant complied with the request for Rawalpindi business, he refused to produce account books for the Kashmir business. Consequently, the Income-tax Officer provisionally assessed the applicant under S. 23 (4), subject to reconsideration upon compliance. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the applicant's appeal, emphasizing the remedy under S. 27 of the Act. Subsequently, the applicant sought a review from the Commissioner, who upheld the legality of the subordinate orders and declined to refer the questions to the Court.

Regarding the first question on the power of the Income-tax Officer under S. 22 (4) to demand account books, the Court found the provision to grant wide powers to the Officer. Despite any concerns about the extent of these powers, the Court interpreted the section broadly, affirming the Officer's authority to request all account books, including those related to the Kashmir business. As profits from the Kashmir business were received in Rawalpindi, the Commissioner's decision not to refer this question was deemed appropriate.

Concerning the second question about the Assistant Commissioner's duty to review proceedings under S. 23 (4), the Court noted that while the Assistant Commissioner should typically ensure the correctness of the Income-tax Officer's actions, in this case, the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied with the Officer's compliance. Therefore, the Court upheld the Commissioner's decision not to refer the question, concluding that the application should be dismissed with costs.