9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (11) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in other words entries were made in the accounts on the date not of receipt of money or expenditure of money but on the date of transactions irrespective of the date of payment. He further found that certain sales aggregating ₹ 90,618-8-0 accounted for in April 1927 i.e., not in the accounting year, had as a matter of fact taken place in March or earlier and consequently he took this sum into account when calculating the profits for assessment of Income Tax. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax declined to interfere on revision under Section 33 and on a further petition under Sub-section (2), Section 66, requiring him to refer certain points of law to this Court the Commissioner held that no such points arose and declined to make a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and bills drawn for the balance, was not correct. Only two transactions of this nature were discovered while other entries showed that this was not the invariable practice. Two specific instances of this kind are mentioned by the Assistant Commissioner in his appellate order. 7. The contention of Mr. Bevan Petman that two of the features of a mercantile system of accountancy are the maintenance of a profit and loss account and a stock book, whereas neither is kept by the petitioner. The absence of these would not in my judgment necessarily imply that this was not the method of accounting employed by the petitioner when as a matter of fact this has been found and the finding is based on evidence. 8. It was admitted that no objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fectly obvious that the sales must have taken place prior to April. On being asked what difference this particular matter made, Mr. Bevan Petman stated that the inclusion of this amount made the petitioner liable to super-tax. Therein lies the explanation for showing these transactions in April while they were really concluded prior to that month, and it also affords the real reason for the present petition. In consequence of the views expressed by me in regard to the first and second points the third does not arise as in the circumstances the application of a flat rate of profits on the turnover was justified especially as it was the same which was applied in the two preceding years and no objection was raised. Moreover no question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
