BENIRAM MOOLCHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act,

(2.) THE assessee Beniram Moolchand carries on the business of manufacturing scents and scented oils and of dealing in foreign scents at Kannauj. During the relevant chargeable accounting period, he also held the selling agency for the sale of Sandalwood oil manufactured by the Mysore Government Factory. THE agreement of selling agency granted the agency in the joint names of the assessee and another person, Lala Banarasi Das Khattri, who had also a business similar to that of the assessee at Kannauj. This agreement was executed on 1-3-1942, and granted the sole right to the assessee and Lala Banarsi Das Khattri to sell Sandalwood oil manufactured by the Mysore Government in the territory consisting of the United Provinces (now the State of Uttar Pradesh), the Central Provinces (now the State of Madhya Pradesh), Central India (now the State of Vindhya Pradesh), THE Punjab, Delhi, Rajputana (now the State of Rajasthan) and all the Indian States within these limits.

(3.) THE application of the assessee under Section 66 (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act has to be disallowed as we are not satisfied that the points of law, which the learned counsel wants to urge after having the question re-framed, arise out of the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. THE scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court in references under Section 66, Income-tax Act, is restricted to deciding questions of law raised by the case referred to the Court by the Tribunal. THEir Lordships of the Judicial Committee in -- 'Commr. of Income-tax, B and O. v. Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga', AIR 1933 PC 108 at pp. 114-115 (A) remarked: