TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1940 (11) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, praying that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax required to state a case to the High Court on certain alleged questions of law arising out of the orders of assessment made by the Department in respect of the returns made by this firm for the year 1936-37. The sole question in dispute is what is the amount of productive investments of this firm in the money-lending business, which this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35,000, but for the year under account this sum was fixed at ₹ 25,000 as there was downward trend of investments. On appeal, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, who himself examined the books, found that the books showed that the investments were stated to be just about ₹ 4,000, but he found it impossible to accept the assessees contention as contained in the books becau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at all. ₹ 40 was shown as received from Messrs. Duli Chand-Ram Sarup, but there was no account relating to such a firm in the books. A sum of ₹ 46 received from Messrs. Lakhu Ram-Idan was not credited to the khata. The explanations offered were unacceptable to the learned Assistant Commissioner and from these he came to the conclusion that the accounts were incomplete and, therefore, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given without interest but that this fact was not noted in the books. In the case of Labhu Ram, he said that the money was still due to be paid to Labhu Ram but there is no indication in the books of this fact. The explanation offered in the case of Wali Mohammed was that he had written off a sum of ₹ 240 as he had settled for a lower figure than was due. This again was not noted in the book....