COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SIKARIA B P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 256(1) by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax.

(2.) MR. D.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Department, contended that the amounts of profit falling to the share of the minor were allowed to accumulate in the account of the partnership and, therefore, the interest on the accumulated profits of the minor was to be included in calculating the total income of the assessee under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. MR. Talukdar has further submitted that the use of the words "interest on their accumulated profits" in question No. 1 indicates that the share of 7profits of the minor were allowed to be used by the firms without any arrangement and/or without asking for interest. In support of his contention, MR Talukdar has referred us to the decisions reported asS. Srinivasan v. CIT, 1967 63 ITR 273. CIT v. Bilas Rai Tekriwal, 1966 61 ITR 467(Pat).H.C. Mehra v. CIT, 1966 61 ITR 647and CIT v. Chinubhai M. Modi, 1968 69 ITR 76

(3.) THE question which, therefore, arises is whether this court shall refer the case back to the Tribunal for submitting an additional statement. It is settled law that, if facts are not found in the statement of the case and the High Court finds any difficulty in answering a question, the High Court has to call for a supplementary statement of the case. THE High Court has no jurisdiction to send for the records and look into them and base its findings on the new or supplementary facts stated by the High Court. But, in the present case, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 198/(Gauhati) of 1979 is not incorporated in the statement of the case. A part thereof has actually been referred to, although the order was not annexed as a part of the statement of the case.