Continuing allocation power and taxable remittances: valid reassignment, resident firm finding, and no further reference on facts.

A continuing statutory power to allocate assessment work was held not to be exhausted by an earlier allocation, so a later reallocation remained valid and no fresh notice of assessment was required. The assessee's residence in British India for 1936-37 was supported by evidence, including the registration certificate and other material before the department, and the factual finding was not disturbed. Remittances were treated as taxable remittances out of profits because the relevant year showed available profits and no carried-forward loss was proved to absorb them. A further reference on the disputed payment was refused because no question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual finding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax could reallocate the assessee's case to another Income Tax Officer under section 5(5) without exhausting his power after an earlier allocation, and whether a fresh notice of assessment was required on such reallocation; (ii) whether there was evidence to support the finding that the assessee was a resident firm in British India for the assessment year 1936-37; (iii) whether remittances made during the year of account were taxable as remittances out of profits and whether losses of earlier years could be set off for the purpose of section 4(2) of the old Act; (iv) whether an additional question should be referred to the Tribunal in respect of the item of Rs. 25,575.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax could reallocate the assessee's case to another Income Tax Officer under section 5(5) without exhausting his power after an earlier allocation, and whether a fresh notice of assessment was required on such reallocation.

Analysis: The power under section 5(5) was construed as a continuing power to distribute and allocate work, and there was no warrant for treating it as exhausted after a first allocation. The later allocation was therefore within jurisdiction. As to notice, the insertion of section 5(7A) did not retrospectively create any new requirement; nor was any right to assessment by a particular officer available once section 64(5) had taken away the operation of section 64(1) and (2) where an officer had been charged under section 5(5) with the function of assessment.

Conclusion: The reallocation was valid, and no fresh notice of assessment was necessary. This issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether there was evidence to support the finding that the assessee was a resident firm in British India for the assessment year 1936-37.

Analysis: The finding was supported by material including the registration certificate showing Bombay as the principal place of business and other evidence placed before the department. The earlier view for a previous assessment year did not preclude reconsideration for the later year, and the record did not justify interference with the factual conclusion reached by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The finding of residence was supported by evidence. This issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether remittances made during the year of account were taxable as remittances out of profits and whether losses of earlier years could be set off for the purpose of section 4(2) of the old Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that there were profits in the relevant year and that the remittances were made out of available profits. No evidence showed that earlier losses had been carried forward or that the profits of the relevant year were absorbed by those losses. The Court further held that section 4(2) did not prevent the authorities from considering the true financial position of the assessee by reference to prior years when examining whether remittances in the previous year represented taxable profits.

Conclusion: The remittances were taxable and the assessee could not compel a contrary result by relying on earlier years' losses. This issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether an additional question should be referred to the Tribunal in respect of the item of Rs. 25,575.

Analysis: The claim was rejected because the books did not disclose any liability or relevant entry supporting the alleged payment to sub-brokers, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual conclusion. The request for a further reference therefore lacked a legal basis.

Conclusion: The application for an additional reference was refused. This issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered substantially against the assessee, the departmental view was upheld on the questions actually decided, and the assessee was directed to bear the costs of the reference.

Ratio Decidendi: A continuing statutory power of allocation under the income-tax law is not exhausted by one prior distribution, no fresh notice is required on a valid reallocation where the assessee's right to a particular assessing officer has been displaced, and taxable remittances may be assessed by examining the real source of the remitted profits with reference to the assessee's financial position across relevant years.

---