9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctorily explained by the respondents. The Income-tax Officer accordingly brought to tax a total income of Rs. 1,31,179 being Rs. 56,487 as income from business and Rs. 74,692 as income from "other sources" and assessed the respondents as an unregistered firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal reduced the income of the respondents from business to Rs. 38,420 and income from "other sources" to Rs. 46,620. In second appeal the Tribunal reduced the income from business to Rs. 28,820 and confirmed the finding that the source of the cash credits aggregating to Rs. 46,620 had remained unexplained. But the Tribunal observed that "there were certain special features in the case which needed proper consideration in determining the final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer questions (1) and (2) and answered questions (3) and (4) in the affirmative. The Commissioner appeals with special leave. The judgment of the Tribunal is not a reasoned decision on the questions arising before it : it is cryptic and in parts obscure, and gives no grounds for its conclusion. The judgment again lends countanence to a method of assessment which the Indian Income-tax Act does not warrant. In paragraph 5 of the order the Tribunal observed that the cash credits discovered by the Income-tax Officer aggregated to Rs. 74,692 which amount was reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 50,620. (It is common ground that the correct figure should be Rs. 46,620). The Tribunal then observed that on the evidence on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two years. For making up a consolidated statement of account the Tribunal gave no reasons nor did it give any reasons " for debiting the intangible additions " of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 6,000 against the cash credits. Counsel for the respondents suggested that the Tribunal was presumably of the view that Rs. 15,000 brought to tax as business income in the assessment in 1952-53 must have been entered in the books of account of the next year and that Rs. 6,000 called " trading deficiency " in the two branches was entered as cash credit. The appeal before the Tribunal raised a simple question--whether the cash credits aggregating to Rs. 46,620 or any part thereof were liable to be taxed as income of the respondents in the year 1953-54. For that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power conferred by that sub-section is wide, but it is still a judicial power which must be exercised in respect of matters that arise in the appeal and according to law. The Tribunal in deciding an appeal before it must deal with questions of law and fact which arise out of the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot assume powers which are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or its scheme. The Tribunal was entitled to enquire whether the source of the cash credits was explained : if it held that they represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, unless the partners have large individual income, would be comparatively low. In the year 1953-54 the respondents were an unregistered firm and the total income of the unregistered firm was liable to be taxed. It was also contended that the arguments raised before this court were never set up either before the Tribunal or before the High Court and should not be permitted to be raised. The questions raised clearly flow from the contentions raised before the Tribunal and contemplate an enquiry into matters urged by counsel for the Commissioner. The decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Nelliappan on which reliance was placed by counsel for the respondents has little bearing in this case. In S. Nelliappan's case it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 21,000 and the additions of Rs. 15,000 made in the assessment for 1952-53 and Rs. 6,000 added in 1953-54. The fourth question contemplates an inquiry whether the Tribunal was justified in directing that the income under the head "business" for the assessment year 1953-54 be reduced to Rs. 50,000. The question is somewhat misleading. The direction of the Tribunal was that the total income of the respondents be reduced to Rs. 50,000 for the year 1953-54, the business income being Rs. 28,820 and the balance being income from other sources. For reasons already set out the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed to combine the income for the two years 1952-53 and 1953-54 and to divide it for the purpose of assessment between the two years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
