Law:

Section:

Section 254, read with section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 33(4), read with section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Appellate Tribunals - Order of - Assessment year 1945-46 - Whether where assessment was made by ITO Amritsar and appeal to Tribunal was filed by ITO, Companies Circle, New Delhi, question as to whether appeal before Tribunal was filed by proper person was not a question of an academic nature or frivolous but did raise a point of law which should have been referred by Tribunal to High Court - Held, yes - Whether where rectification was made by Tribunal under section 35 of 1922 Act in its original order, amended order could not be regarded as one under section 33(4) of 1922 Act and, therefore, questions arising therefrom could not be regarded as questions arising out of original order under section 33(4) of 1922 Act and could not be directed to be referred to High Court - Held, yes FACTS Out of certain additions made by the ITO in the assessable income of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1945-46, the only item in dispute was addition of Rs. 1,50,000 made for excessive shortage in wheat claimed. Assessee's appeal was accepted by the AAC. On revenue's further appeal, besides pointing out certain formal defects in the appeal presented, the assessee contended that since the assessment was made by the ITO, Amritsar, the ITO, Companies Circle, New Delhi, was not competent to file the appeal. The Tribunal overruled the objections and partly accepted the department's appeal. The result was that the add-back amounting to Rs. 1,50,000 made by the ITO and deleted by the AAC was restored. The Tribunal observed that there was no reason why the milling gains were shown at 19chhataks per maund as compared to 35 chhataks per maund shown last year and, hence, addition made by ITO was justified as the assessee had not maintained correct sock account from day to day. Subsequently, it was discovered that in fact the milling gains in weight of wheat handled during the last year as shown in the books of the assessee worked out to about 17 chhataks and not to 35 chhataks per maund, as wrongly assumed by the Tribunal. The…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492