TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (12) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he circumstances of the case, the 'previous year' for the assessment year 1959-60 in respect of the contract business was correctly taken as the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959 ? and the second question referred by the Tribunal as required by us, under section 66(2) in R. C. No. 36 of 1966, namely : " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, estimation of profit on the gross amount instead of estimating on the net amount received by the assessee after deduction of costs of material supplied by the Government is justified in law. " The assessee is an individual contractor and has several sources of income, such as interest on securities, income from house property and income from business. In the previous year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1958-59 in the proportion of 3 : 1. The basis for doing so as appears from the Income-tax Officer's report is the receipts in each of the above assessment years, which according to him justify the fixing of that proportion. Mr. Ramachandra Rao contends that once a year of assessment has been adopted by the Income-tax Officer, he cannot give a go-by to that period and adopt another. As a proposition of law it is unexceptionable. But in this case the adoption by the Income-tax Officer of the previous year, October to September, for the assessment year 1958-59, was wrongly adopted, because it does not satisfy the requirements of section 2(11)(i)(a) of the Income-tax Act. It is only in cases where the assessee could adopt a different period to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect accounting period in terms of section 2(11)(i)(a). The next question that has been urged before us is that the apportionment ought to have been made over a period of 4 years instead of 2 years, because the receipts were spread over those 4 years. We would have considered this question but for the fact that it was not urged at any stage of the assessment proceedings, nor is it the subject-matter of the assessment. Nor for the same reason can we assist the assessee in respect of his further argument that the whole of the amount was not received in those two assessment years and, therefore, the proportion of the 3/4ths and 1/4ths was not a correct proportion to be adopted as a basis for assessment of the tax. In this view, our answer to ....