9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 32,485 to which he added, for rate purposes, ₹ 8,740 being the 3/8ths share of the profits derived by Hanuman Parshad from another firm Ghanisham Das Hanuman Parshad in which he was a partner and which had been separately assessed. The petitioner claimed a deduction of ₹ 5,928 as a bad debt against one Khushi Ram munim and also urged that the-profit earned by Hanuman Prasad as a partner of Messrs Ghanisham Das Hanuman Parshad should not have been taken to be the income of the assesses firm for rate purposes. The Income Tax Officer decided against the assessee on both these points and his order was confirmed on appeal by the Assistant, Commissioner. The Commissioner re fused to review the assessment or to make a refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax 2 Income Tax Cases 236, but the examination of this matter must be reserved for some other occasion as the question does not arise on the facts of this case. 4. On the second question it is urged that there is no presumption under Hindu Law that a business carried on by a coparcener in partnership with strangers is a family business Mirza Mal Bhagwan Das v. Rameshar AIR1929All536 and that the Income Tax authorities have misdireated themselves as to the law on this point. It is no doubt true that some of the observations of the Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner lend support to the suggestion that they did not raise the initial presumption in favour of the assessee but there is no doubt that the facts mentioned by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a previous year of assessment a decision was arrived at after investigation and enquiry that certain deductions ought to be made, it is still open to the Income Tax authorities to reopen the question in a subsequent year of assessment and the authorities not constituting a Court are not barred by the principle of res judicata. It was also held that though they are entitled to re-open the enquiry they cannot arbitrarily change the assessment simply on the ground that the succeeding officer does not agree with the preceding officer's finding: The principles of natural justice of judicial dealing which Courts impose upon Income Tax Officers would prevent them from capriciously setting aside the order or their predecessors based on an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
