RAMLAL JUGAL KISHORE Vs. EPTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of a voluntary disclosure of income, the EPTO of Patna made assessments of excess profits tax on the petitioner, Ramlal Jugal Kishore, for the chargeable accounting periods from 1st September, 1939, to 31st of March, 1946. In making these assessments, the EPTO adopted the standard profits of Rs. 36,000 per annum which is the minimum standard profit fixed under the EPT Act. The case of the petitioner is that for the "standard period" the standard profit of the petitioner amounted to about Rs. 80,000 per annum and there was a mistake committed by the EPTO in taking the standard profit at Rs. 36,000 per annum. The contention of the petitioner is that this procedure adopted by the EPTO has resulted in excessive assessments. The petitioner accordingly filed an application on the 11th October, 1957, to the CEPT under S. 20 of the EPT Act for rectification of the mistake. This petition was dismissed by the CEPT on the 10th of December, 1957. On the 19th of December, 1957, the petitioner filed another application before the CEPT, but this application was also dismissed. The petitioner then moved the Central Board of Revenue on the 30th May, 1959, for adoption of the correct figure of standard profit and rectification of the excess profits tax assessments. By a letter dated the 6th May, 1960, the Central Board of Revenue informed the petitioner that it did not consider it necessary to interfere.

(2.) THE petitioner has now obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the CEPT under S. 20 of the EPT Act should not be set aside under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Advocate put forward the argument that the order of the CEPT is defective in law because he has given no relevant reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the standard profit should not have been taken at Rs. 36,000 but standard profit should have been computed for the standard period at Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 80,000. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. In rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the CEPT stated as follows :