COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. UNITED TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellate Tribunal on mandamus from this court has referred the following question for our opinion :

(2.) HOWEVER, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that no question of law arises from the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the reference as such has to be returned as unanswered.

(3.) THE accounting year of the assessee firm coincided with the calendar year up to the assessment year 1971-72. In the original as well as the revised return for the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee showed the previous year consisting of 15 months, ending on March 31, 1972. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that it had made an application dated December 6, 1971, before Shri Jagmohan Chopra, predecessor of the Assessing Authority, for his consent under Section 3 (4) of the Income-tax Act for varying the meaning of the expression "previous year" who had duly given his consent to the change of the previous years from the calendar year to the financial year. As the application as well as the orders passed on that application were not available on record, information was sought from Shri Jagmohan Chopra if any consent was given, as alleged. Shri Chopra having denied the same, the assessing authority rejected the contention of the assessee and framed the assessment adopting the previous year ending with the calendar year. On appeal, the order of the assessing authority was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the case remanded for reassessment on the basis that consent for the change of the previous year had been granted. Having failed before the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue got the above question referred for a mandamus as stated above.