LAWS(PVC)-1942-4-10

RAHOMAL KANNOMAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Decided On April 15, 1942
RAHOMAL KANNOMAL Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. The facts giving rise to this application may be stated : The assessee who is the applicant before us is a Hindu undivided family dealing in gain, money-lending and commission agency business. The assessment year in which is in dispute in these proceedings is 1938-39. In compliance with a notice a return was made by the assessee to the effect that his income for the previous year was Rs. 6,000 odd. The income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the correctness of this return and, therefore, he issued notices under Section 22 (4) and 23 (2). These notice were complied with, but the Income-tax Officer issued another notice under Section 22 (4). It appears that the Department got some information from other traders that certain sales and purchases had been made by the assessee but they had not been entered in the books produced by the assessee. The notice under Section 22 (4) was, therefore, a notice demanding from the assessee the production of his genuine accounts. No such accounts were submitted, and the Income- tax Officer was of the opinion that a default had been made. He, therefore, on the 14 May 1939 made an assessee was Rs. 23,400. This Income-tax Officer distinctly says in his order that the assessment is under Section 23 (40 of the Act.

(2.) There was an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner and there was also an application to the Income-tax Officer under Section 27 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application under Section 27 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal against that order as well.

(3.) The position, therefore, was that there tow appeals before the Assistant Commissioner, one against the order under Section 23 (4) and another against the order under Section 27. The Assistant Commissioner disposed of these two appeals on the 18 of October 1939, by separate orders, but in either case the appeals were dismissed.