9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (12) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t October, 1951, to 18th October, 1952. The assessee has been assessed in the status of an individual on the profits which accrued to him in his business carried on in the name of B. Natwarlal and Co. in tobacco. The business consisted in making purchases of raw tobacco from local agriculturists and the sale thereof after subjecting the same to certain processes such as curing, etc. By an agreement of partnership dated 30th October, 1952, entered into between Dhoribhai Lallubhai Patel and his five sons, it was agreed that the aforesaid business of B. Natwarlal and Co. and other businesses carried on by his sons should be amalgamated so that all the said businesses could be carried on in partnership, from Kartik Sud 1st, Samvat Year 2009, i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As regards item (a), 232 maunds 18 seers arose by reason of the fact that that quantity of tobacco had been sold during the Samvat year 2007, but delivery of that quantity of tobacco was not given during Samvat year 2007, but was given during Samvat year 2008. As regards item (b), it was found that on 30th November, 1951, when the excise authorities checked the goods lying in the warehouse of the assessee, a shortage of 41 maunds 8 seers was discovered. It was urged before us by Mr. Thakar, learned advocate for the assessee, that this shortage occurred due to evaporation and processing of goods. The Tribunal in its order dated 6th May, 1958, has stated in connection with item (b) as under: "According to the certificate given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e asked the Tribunal to direct the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment made by him for the earlier assessment year 1952-53, i.e., for the accounting Samvat year 2007, on the ground that the closing stock shown in the earlier accounting year was shown at a larger figure than what it really ought to have been. In dealing with this argument, the Tribunal has observed as follows: "As already observed, without full data and material, no such direction can be given. We have, however, no doubt that the department will look into the matter and if the same amount as alleged by the assessee has been taxed in the earlier year, it will grant the necessary relief. We agree with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that so far as the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunicate any such orders to the assessee and to the Commissioner." The words "pass such orders thereon" refer to the order that may be passed in the appeal. The Tribunal cannot be required to give directions in respect of a matter which does not constitute the subject-matter of the appeal. What the Tribunal in effect was asked to do was to give directions in respect of a matter pertaining to an earlier assessment year and to direct the Income-tax Officer to take action in respect of the completed assessment for the previous assessment year. This the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to do and the Tribunal was justified in not acceding to the request of the assessee in this connection. Our answer to question No. 1 is in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount so calculated being ₹ 3,62,830. When the assessee was called upon to explain the basis on which valuation was made at the said rate, the assessee stated that the rate adopted was the market rate prevailing at the end of Samvat year 2008. In support thereof he produced a letter dated 4th October, 1952, from one Tulsidas Gordhanbhai of Delhi. In that letter Tulsidas Gordhanbhai states, inter alia, as under: "Received your letter and sample of goods. Goods are approved but the rates are very high. We are bargaining with you for the first time and so we are prepared to purchase the goods at the rate of ₹ 110 to ₹ 115 per maund. If you are willing to settle the bargain intimate us immediately..........." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had agreed to transfer the stock of tobacco to the firm of Messrs. Purshottamdas Dhoribhai and Co. at the rate of ₹ 120 per maund and gave an analysis showing how the valuation of various lots of goods was arrived at. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied with the answer given by the assessee. Apart from the letter written by Tulsidas Gordhanbhai there was no evidence led by the assessee as regards the market value of those goods. The Income-tax Officer has, in arriving at the valuation of these goods, looked at the various sales of various lots which has been effected by the assessee, and from the order of the Income- tax Officer it appears that the rates taken by him were the lowest rates at which the sales ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
