1960 (10) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and 1946-47. Subsequent to the original assessments made for those years, the Income-tax Officer received definite information that the appellant was carrying on business with Messrs. Mangalchand Basantlal of Khurja in the district of Aligarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh under different names; that it had remitted certain amounts from Ranchi to Messrs. Mangalchand Basantlal; that Messrs. Mangalchand Basantlal had sent a draft of Rs. 2,500 to Amritsar on behalf of and under the instruction of the appellant ; and that the appellant had also earned profits by business dealings in peas, etc., none of which business transactions were shown in the account books of the appellant. When the original assessments were made, the profits made from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, but reduced the amounts to Rs. 28,000, Rs. 26,000 and Rs. 12,000 respectively. Thereafter, the appellant moved the Tribunal for referring a certain question of law which, according to the appellant, arose out of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal originally framed the question in the following terms: " Whether in the facts and circumstances of these cases the proceedings started on December 10, 1947, under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, as amended by Act XLVIII of 1948, for reopening the assessments of the years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 were valid ? " But this reference was not pressed. The appellant then moved the High Court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the High Court framed the question i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on is not now open to the appellant. The question as framed by the High Court was indeed wide enough to entitle the appellant to raise the point that the quantum of the assessment for each assessment year was not legally sustainable as there were no materials in support thereof. But the appellant did not raise any such point in the High Court. On the contrary, the judgment of the High Court records that " Mr. S. N. Dutt, who appeared for the assessee in each case, has not disputed the quantum of assessment. " The two-fold argument advanced in the High Court was---first, that the assessed income could not be said to be "escaped income" within the meaning of section 34, and, secondly, that there was no material to support the assessment under....