Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1929 (3) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oduced by the petitioner inasmuch as the fact that the rokar bears the Income Tax Officer's signature, dated 7th October 1925, was completely ignored and, if so, whether the finding itself is legal? 2. The petitioner submits that these points arise under the following circurrr stances: 3. The petitioner has a money lending business at Beldarwa and a ricemill at Adapur in the district of Champaran. The present assessment is for the year 1927-1928 which is based on the income of the previous year, the accounting year of the assessee ending in the month of Kartik of the Fasli year. In compliance with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act he submitted a return showing an assessable income of ₹ 5,787. Thereupon the Income Tax O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... him at the time of the local inquiry as the sale price did not agree, and the assessee was asked under Section 22(4) to produce the books which the Income Tax Officer had signed, giving a warning to the assessee that otherwise he would make a heavy assessment and also a penal assessment. The 29th January was fixed to produce these books. 5. It appears that on 29th January a servant of the assessee, named Ibadat Mian appeared, and it appears from the order-sheet that a petition was filed on that date for a month's time on the ground of illness of the proprietor. The order-sheet shows that the Income Tax Officer was of opinion that time was asked for simply to evade producing the account books. He, however, allowed another opportunity .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 28 should not be imposed for deliberately showing a lesser amount as the income from sale of rice. On 23rd February 1927, the assessee filed an application before the Income Tax Officer for cancellation of the assessment and for making a fresh assessment under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. The Income Tax Officer rejected this application by his order, dated 4th June 1927, and on the same day he imposed a penalty of ₹ 679-5-0 under Section 28 of the Act. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 30 of the Act; but this appeal was not admitted by the Assistant Commissioner as in his view the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation of thirty days provided by Sub-section (2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dealing with the present application this Court is bound to accept the findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner. It is not open to this Court to go into the facts of the case and to determine whether the Commissioner was right in his findings of the facts. The finding of facts of the Commissioner is that the Income Tax Officer did, as a matter of fact, go to the mill at Adapur on 30th July 1926, inspected certain books, made notes in the departmental notebook and in his diary, and signed the books which he had inspected. The Commissioner was f also of opinion that the books produced by the assessee on 29th January through his gomashta, Chhathu Lal, were not the real books, and that the Income Tax Officer acted within jurisdiction in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the books were really in existence, and the non-production thereof did amount to a failure to comply with the notice under Section 22(4). As regards the order of the Commissioner imposing the penalty under Rule 28 of the Act, it is contended by Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the Commissioner that this was an original order passed by the Commissioner and did not come within the provisions of Sub-section (3), Section 66 of the Act which would empower this Court to call upon him to state a case. It is contended that it is only against orders passed on appeal under Sections 31 or 32 of the Act that a reference can be made to this Court by the Commissioner and this Court cannot call upon the Commissioner to state a case in respect of orders passed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates