9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (12) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Dhown, looked into the accounts submitted, calculated the income, allowed certain deductions, disallowed others and ultimately found that the total income which was taxable came to ₹ 7,00,000 odd. He calculated the Income Tax and the super-tax and declared that the net amount came to ₹ 96,933-12-0 Having said so, the learned officer made the following remark: The assessment is wholly based on accounts but is made under Section 23 (4), Income Tax Act, for the assessee's failure to comply with all the terms of the notice under Section 22(4), in that the following accounts were deliberately withheld by the aasessee, which according to general -reputation the Rai Bahadur has got and which he could produce.... 2. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, is incorrect, among others, for the following reasons.... 4. We take it that the point of law that Seth Gangasagar wanted to raise was whether, in the circumstances of the case the assessment should be deemed to have been properly made under Section 23 (4) or whether it should have bean treated as having been made under Section 23 (3) of the same Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax thought that the petition of Seth Gangasagar did not raise any point of law at all and if any question did arise, it was the following, viz.: Whether the findings of the Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner that the assessee could have produced the account books for the year 1981 to 1982, had he been so minded, were legally v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a later year, he submitted a statement which was found to have been false and materially concealed his income. He was prosecuted and convicted for concealment of his income and he was assessed to the best of judgment by the then Income Tax Officer for the year 1927 to 1928. In that year, i, e , during the assessment for the year 1927 to 1928 a controversy arose as to whether the account books of the year 1981 to 1982 were in the possession of the assessee or not. The assessee asserted that the books had been lost in transit between Bombay and Khurja, but his statement was not believed. This statement formed the subject matter of a criminal prosecution, but no charge was framed and no conviction was obtained. In the following year, namely 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the year 1981 to 1982 were not required for the purposes of assessment and he should not have been called upon to produce them and that in any case, his statement- that the books were lost, should have been believed. We are not in a position to say whether the books are actually in the possession of the assessee or whether they are lost, but we think that there is a good deal of strength in the contention that the books for the year 1981 to 1982 were not required within the meaning of Section 22 (4), Income Tax Act. An Income Tax Officer is entitled to call for documents which in his opinion would furnish him with relevant material for assessment 01 tax. Sub-section 4, Section 22 runs as follows; The Income Tax Officer may serve.. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complain. But where the proper materials are before the Income Tax Officer, he would utilize them and make assessment under Section 23 (3), which assessment would be liable to be re-examined by the appellate officer. When an assessment is made by the Income Tax Officer more or less on matters which have been guessed out, there cannot be any proper appeal to an appellate Court. The Income Tax Officer does very often possess extraneous information as to the income of a man and if he thinks that the assessee's proper income is at a certain figure, it is but right that his judgment should be final and there should be no appeal. There would be no sense in substituting the Income Tax Officer's guess by his superior Officer's gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
