9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., 12.5 per cent. and 10 per cent., respectively, of the amounts received by the assessee from M. E. S. Department. Later on, it came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer that the cost of materials supplied by the military authorities to be used in the building works by the assessee had not been disclosed by him and, therefore, notices under section 34 of the Act were issued to him. The orders of reassessment were made by adding the amounts representing the cost of materials supplied by the military authorities, which amounts were Rs. 23,234, Rs. 8,940, Rs. 29,636 and Rs. 46,424, respectively, for the four years mentioned above. The same percentages were applied to determine the net profits on these amounts and the amount of income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplied by the military authorities was to be included before applying the flat rate to the assessee's receipts ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in applying the same flat rate to the price of stores supplied by the department as was applied to the other receipts of the assessee ? " The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the materials supplied by the M. E. S. Department were the property of that department and were to be used only in the construction of the works undertaken by the assessee. Those materials were to remain in the custody of the M. E. S. Department and the petitioner cannot be said to have made any profits with regard to them. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on this part of the case. No arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on the subject-matter of questions Nos. 1 and 2 set out above, but after perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the assessee had waived his objection to the validity of the notice issued to him by the Income-tax Officer under section 34(1) of the Act. We are further of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the case fell under section 34(1) of the Act. For the reasons given above, the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee, while the answers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
