PHOOSA LAL MANSINGHKA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee during the year of assessment and the corresponding previous year was a resident of Bhilwara outside British India, so that proceedings for his assessment could be taken on the basis that he was a non-resident in British India. He held 8,390 shares in Bijay Cotton Mills, Ltd. situate at Bijaynagar in British India. THE Income-Tax Officer of Ajmer Merwara issued a notice under Section 22(2) of the Income-Tax Act, on 6-3-1943 calling upon the assesses to file a return in respect of the assessment year 1942-43. THE notice was served on the assessee but no return was filed. THEreafter, a notice under Section 22(4) dated 26-3-1043 was issued for production of books of account by the assessee at Ajmer on 12-4-1943.

(2.) IN the statement of the, case submitted by the Tribunal, the facts mentioned above have been set out whereafter the Tribunal proceed d to say that the contention of the assessee had not been accepted by the Tribunal for the reason recorded by it in its appellate order, a copy of which formed Dart of the statement of the case. The findings given by the Tribunal were not brought out in the statement of the case itself. The statement of the case includes with it as annexure the appellate order of the Tribunal, and in addition, during the hearing of the case by us. We were provided with copies of the assessment order parsed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. No other material was made available to us so that it was not possible to find out under what circumstances and on what basis the income-tax Officer had proceeded to issue the notice under Section 22(2) of the Act.