9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (9) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal refused to refer are : "(1) Whether the fact that the applicant apportioned the sum of Rs. 79,680 out of the general revenue expenses of its estate towards the immature area and capitalised the same for purposes of its accounts precluded the appellant from claiming the same as revenue expenses for the purpose of agricultural income-tax assessment ? (2) Whether the Tribunal ought not to have considered the nature of the expenses amounting to Rs. 79,680 for the purpose of determining whether it is allowable expenditure or not irrespective of the way it was dealt with by the applicant for the purpose of its accounts ?" The Tribunal in its order refusing to refer those questions observed: "The assessees have treated a sum of Rs. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise from the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline their request to compel a reference under, section 60(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. We dismiss this petition. There will be no order as to costs. " There is material on record to show that in respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the year previous to the one with which we are concerned in this case, the Tribunal refused to refer similar questions which the assessee wanted it to refer to the High Court. But, at the instance of the assessee those questions were referred to the High Court as ordered by the High Court and the High Court answered those questions in favour of the assessee. It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amont to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een unduly influenced by its decision relating to the year immediately previous to the year of assessment and, consequently, it appears that it ignored the assessee's assertion that their account books do not correctly show the facts. If the Tribunal had examined the plea of the assessee that their account books do not correctly disclose the real facts and thereafter rejected that contention, then the finding of the Tribunal would have been a finding of fact and this court would not have interfered with such a finding. Dr. Seyid Muhammed urged that the decision of the High Court relating to the assessment of the assessee in the earlier year is wrong. An uncertified copy of that order was produced before us. Therein, the High Court purport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
