NEW BIJLI FOUNDRY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered firm. THE year in dispute is the assessment year 1961-62. It is carrying on the business of manufacturing of sewing machines, lathes, milling machines, drills, chaff catting machines, machinery castings and assembling of radios. It consisted of the following partners:

(2.) THE share of each partner has been shown against his name. THE Income-tax Officer, Batala, framed the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1961-62, vide order dated March 18, 1966, on a total income of Rs. 2,58,997. THE income as assessed included a sum of Rs. 1,86,132 which comprised of three items, namely, Rs. 1,58,939, an item in the Uchanti bahi, Rs. 20,000 with respect to branches of the petitioner firm, and Rs. 7,193 representing certain items of export nature. Although the above income was found by the Income-tax Officer as the income of the petitioner, yet it had filed a revised return showing its income as Rs. 1,68,331. It went up in appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who reduced the total income by Rs. 67,232, vide order dated January 24, 1970. This total assessable income of the petitioner was computed by him as Rs. 1,91,765. He also imposed a penalty on it under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in the sum of Rs. 72,000. It went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was partly accepted by it on July 28, 1971. It reduced the gross profits by another 2 per cent. Thus, the balance of the assessable income as found by the Tribunal came to Rs. 1,67,765. It also reduced the penalty to 40 per cent. It allowed certain consequential reliefs. THE petitioner then made an application to the Tribunal to refer the case to the High Court to decide certain questions of law. THE Tribunal dismissed the application on December 27, 1971. It has now come to this court under Section 256(2) of the Act, praying that the Tribunal be ordered to state the case and refer the following questions of law to it:

(3.) THE departmental representative contended that this was entirely a new ground which was never taken up at any stage before any of the officers and, therefore, this may not be accepted at this stage."