1964 (10) TMI 5 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the Assessing Officer rejected the Registers other than the Sale Contract Register and the Yarn Production Register and that though the Appellate Authority and the High Court did not in terms reject the said Registers they relied upon the said two Registers maintained by the appellant himself and therefore the findings arrived at by them are findings of fact which should not be disturbed in appeal under article 136 of the Constitution? Held that - The scope of the enquiry before the Assessing Officer should not be limited in the manner suggested by the High Court. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider afresh the entire material that has already been placed before him and such other material such as registers which have been maintained but are admittedly not produced and other relevant evidence as may be brought before him and come to a conclusion in regard to the question of unaccounted yarn in the light of the directions given by this court and those given by the High Court in other matters. The Assessing Officer shall not in any case increase the tax liability on this point over and above that he has initially assessed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the judgment of the High Court regarding industrial tax assessment under Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927.
2. Dispute over the assessment of unexplained shortage of yarn by the Assessing Officer and subsequent appeals.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard two batches of appeals arising from income-tax proceedings under the Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927. The first batch challenged the High Court's judgment, while the second batch contested the refusal to grant a certificate for leave to appeal. The second batch of appeals was dismissed as they were not pressed. The appellant, a public limited company engaged in the textile industry, was assessed for industrial tax for the years 1940-1944. The Assessing Officer added the shortage of yarn to the assessable profits, leading to appeals to the Appellate Authority and subsequently to the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for trial and disposal based on certain directions. The appellant's counsel argued that the conclusions were based on irrelevant evidence, emphasizing discrepancies in the account books.

The manufacturing process involving cotton purchase, spinning into yarn, and cloth production was detailed to understand the losses and accretions during the process. The appellant maintained various registers reflecting the manufacturing process. The Sale Contract Register and the Daily Yarn Production Register were crucial in the assessment of unexplained yarn shortage. The authorities relied on these registers, leading to disputes over the rejection of other registers. The appellant contended that all relevant registers should have been considered, and explanations for discrepancies should have been evaluated. The Supreme Court directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider all material, including registers not produced earlier, and reach a conclusion on the unaccounted yarn issue without increasing the tax liability.

The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals 183-187 of 1964 with costs, while Civil Appeals 188-192 were dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and explanations in tax assessments, ensuring a fair and thorough evaluation of the facts presented.