1976 (11) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case appearing from the statement of the case may be briefly stated as follows. The assessee is a contractor whose income has been estimated in the past by applying a rate of net profit. No regular accounts have been maintained by the assessee but the details of receipts from the various contract works were being submitted before the department for assessment. The relevant assessment year is 1964-65. In this assessment year the assessee filed a return showing his income at Rs. 13,310. He was, however, assessed at an income of Rs. 67,011. The income that has been assessed includes the share of profit in M/s. Madhabram Bora and others, Ulubari, Gauhati, which is a registered firm and the income of which has come up for consideration for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the contract works and on those amounts the Income-tax Officer used to assess tax on percentage basis. In the preceding assessment year the income was assessed at 10.5% and in the present assessment year the income has been assessed at 12 1/2%. One factor, however, swelled the income of the assessee in the relevant assessment year and that is the income of the assessee as partner in the partnership firm, M/s. Madhabram Bora and others. The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee's counsel that this was the first year of the firm and it was not known whether the firm would be registered or not and that the return of the partnership firm showing the assessee as a partner also had been filed before the same Income-tax Officer and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his conclusion cannot be said to be illegal or perverse, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as considered by the Tribunal and as noticed hereinabove. Another question also appears from the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, that is, the applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner it has not been stated that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden as required under the Explanation. There is no finding to that effect in the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal also has held that the difference between the income returned and the income assessed has been due to two reasons, namely, (i) the raising of the p....