9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (4) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of partnership was also executed on March 16, 1944. The assessee entered into contracts with Government for the sup- ply of goods, and in the assessment year 1942-43, ₹ 10,80,658-0-0 and in the assessment year 1943-44, ₹ 17,45,336-0-0 were assessed as its income by the Income-tax Officer, Contractor's Circle, New Delhi. The supplies to Government were made for. Jaipur by the assessee, and payment was by cheques which were received at Jaipur and were endorsed in favour of the joint Hindu family, which acted as the assessee's bankers. The contention of the assessee was that this income was received at Jaipur outside the then taxable territories. This contention was not accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The assessee then applied for a reference to the High Court under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and by its order dated December 10, 1952, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for the decision of the High Court: " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the profits and gains in respect of the sales made to the Government of India were received by the assessee in the taxable territories ? &q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving received it in the taxable territory, even if he was outside it. In Sir Sobha Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax ([1950] 18 I.T.R. 998), it was held by the Punjab High Court that where cheques were given to a bank for purposes of collection, the receipt of the money was at the place where the bank on which the cheques were drawn was situated. These views found further amplification, and were applied in two other cases by the Bombay If high Court. They are Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax ([1952] 21 I.T.R. 82) and Ogale Glass Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (I. Tax Reference No. 10 of 1949 of the Bombay H. C. decided on September 17, 1951). In both these cases, it was held that unless the payee expressly constituted the post office as his agent, the mere posting of the cheque did not constitute the post office the agent of the payee, and that the amount of the cheque was also received at the place where the cheque was received. In Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax(3), it was held that the mere posting of the cheque in Delhi was not tantamount to the receipt of the cheque in Delhi, because the payee had not requested the Government t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agents for collecting the amount due on the cheques. The question whether the posting of the cheques from British India to Bhavnagar at the request, express or implied, of the Mills or otherwise, made any difference was not considered at any stage before the case reached the High Court of Bombay. This was expressly found to be so by this Court in these words: " The only ground urged by the Revenue at all material stages was that because the amounts which were received, from the merchants or the Government were received by cheques drawn on banks in British India which were ultimately encashed in British India, the monies could not be said to have been received in Bhavnagar though the cheques were in fact received at Bhavnagar." The reference was held back by the Tribunal till the decision of this Court in Ogale Glass Works case (1) and Kirloskar Brothers' case (2). Even after seeing that in those two cases the request for payment by cheques to be sent by post made all the difference, the Tribunal did not frame its statement of the case or the question to include this aspect, because that aspect of the matter was never considered before.' The question referred w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der and direct the Tribunal to investigate new or further facts necessary to determine this new question which had not been referred to it under s. 66(1) or s. 66(2) and direct the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case." It was also pointed out that the facts admitted and/ or found by the Tribunal could alone be the foundation of the question of law which might be said to arise out of the Tribunal's order. The case thus set two limits to the jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 66(4), and they were that the advisory jurisdiction was confined (a) to the facts on the record and/or found by the Tribunal and (b) the question which would arise from the Tribunal's order. It was pointed out by this Court that it was not open to the High Court to order a fresh enquiry into new facts with a view to amplifying the record and further that it was equally not open to the High Court to decide a question of law, which did not arise out of the Tribunal's order. This was illustrated by comparing the question as framed by the Tribunal with the question which the High Court desired to decide. Whereas the Tribunal had only referred the question: " Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and/or found by the Tribunal, and should not open the door to fresh evidence. The fact that in Ogale Glass Works case (I. Tax Reference No. 19 of 1949 of the Bombay H. C. decided on September 17, 1951), the Bombay High Court had asked for a supplemental statement in the same way as in the Jehangir Vakil Mills case ([1960] 1 S.C.R. 249), and this Court did not rule out the new matter, cannot help the assessee in the present case, because the jurisdiction of the High Court was not questioned, as it had been done in the Jehangir Vakil Mills case, or has been done here. We have thus to see whether in this case the question which was decided and which has been referred to the High Court admits the return of the case for a supplemental statement on the lines indicated by the High Court in the order under appeal. At the very start, one notices a difference in the question of law in this case and the Ogale Glass Works case ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 185), on the one hand, and the question of law in the Jehangir Vakil Mills case ([1960] 1 S.C.R. 249), on the other. In the former two cases, the question is very wide, while in the latter it is extremely narrow. This can be Been by placing the three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
