TAYABALI MOHAMMADALI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE inclusion of a sum of Rs. 10,000 in the assessment was the subject-matter of a reference to this Court which was answered in favour of the assessee. Which disposing of that matter, this Court observed:

(2.) SO far as S. 34 (1) (a) is concerned, clearly the notice would be out of time for it was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Cl. (2) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 34.

(3.) AS a finding within the meaning of second proviso to sub-section (3) of S. 34 also, the revenue is in no better position. A finding for purposes of that proviso should be one which is rendered on and is necessary for the disposal of an issue in the sense of the Civil Procedure Code. That was the view taken by the Supreme court in Income-tax Officer v. Murlidar Bhaghwands, This view this Court applied in T. C. No. 155 of 1962 and T. C. No. 175 of 1962 (Mad ). The only difference in this case is that the observation was made by this Court in the course of disposal of a reference. That would hardly make any difference. In one sense the jurisdiction of this Court on a reference is even narrower that that of the appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal on appeals. As we have observed, the only question that was referred to this Court earlier was whether the sum Rs. 10,000 could be included as income from undisclosed sources during the accounting year in question there. That being the case, the observation relied on by the Revenue for purposes of applying the second proviso to S. 34 (3) cannot be regarded as a finding within the meaning of that proviso.