9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... world, its head office being at Bombay. In the year of assessment 1942-43, the relevant previous year being one commencing on 6th of April, 1941, and ending with 31st of March, 1942, it had its branches at Yokohama and Kobe. In July, 1941, the property of the assessee-firm as well as the property of the other Indian nationals was frozen by the Japanese Government. The properties so frozen consisted of cash in the bank account of the assessee-firm both at Yokohama and Kobe, cash in hand, amounts which were due to the assessee-firm from the persons to whom the goods had been supplied, stock-in-trade at both the aforesaid branches, immovable properties, furniture and household articles. Japan declared war on the 8th of December, 1941. In the assessment year 1942-43, the assessee-firm claimed that in the relevant previous year it suffered loss on account of the aforesaid action of the Japanese authorities-loss both in respect of the book debts which were due to the assessee-firm and the stock-in-trade. The total loss claimed amounted to 2,38,644 Yens which at the rate of the currency then prevailing in the assessment year came to Rs . 1,94,495. In the aforesaid amount the loss claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case indicating therein the facts on which the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the loss occurred to the assessees as a result of enemy action, and also the facts as a result of which the assessees claimed that the goods which were frozen were ultimately lost to them and the point of time at which the book debts and the stock-in-trade were lost to the assessees. In the supplementary statement submitted by the Tribunal on November 13, 1959, the Tribunal found as a fact that the goods which were originally frozen in July, 1941, were, at the end of 1941, declared to be the enemy property and were lost to the assessee before the end of the year 1941 on declaration of war. These goods were therefore lost to the assessee in the year of account. The Tribunal further held that the assessee received some compensation in Yens in respect of loss of goods in the year 1945. The value of the Yen had at that time considerably gone down and the equivalent amount in Indian money would be only about ₹ 2,000 in 1945. It appears that before the Tribunal drew up the supplementary statement of the case but after the report had been made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Government of India did not include any compensation for the loss of stock-in-trade. This court wrote an elaborate order on 6th October, 1962, and brought it to the notice of the Tribunal that in order to determine the questions before this court, it was necessary to have the findings of the Tribunal on the following three issues : (1)What amount was paid by the Government of India to the assessee as compensation? (2)Whether the amount, if any, received by the assessee from the Government of India, included therein any amount representing the price of the stock-in-trade of the assessee frozen in Japanese action ; and (3)The quantum of loss, if any, suffered by the assessee by reason of the freezing of his stock-in-trade by the Japanese authorities, in the light of its finding on the aforesaid two issues. The Tribunal in its supplementary statement of case of date 5th July, 1963, answered the aforesaid three issues in the following terms : (1)The Government of India paid ₹ 2,87,517 as compensation to the assessee. (2)The amount received by the assessee from the Government of India included therein some amount representing the price of stock-in-trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallenged by the department either by making an application under section 66(1) of the Act to the Tribunal or by making an application to court under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Act in the event of rejection of its application by the Tribunal. The reference was sought only by the assessee and the finding of the Tribunal which was challenged was only as regards the nature of the loss. That being the position, in our opinion, the contention now raised by Mr. Joshi is foreign to the question which we have to consider. It is next contended by Mr. Joshi that, on the facts found, the total amount of compensation which the assessee received from the Government of India is ₹ 2,87,517. The said amount represented compensation paid to the assessee in respect of loss of the amount which was in the assessee's account in the banks at Yokohama and Kobe, loss of cash in hand at those places, loss of stock-in-trade, loss of immovable property, furniture and household articles. In estimating the amount of compensation, which represented the price of the stock-in-trade, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the said amount of ₹ 2,87,517 in proportion to the amounts claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
