MATHURA DAS CHANNU LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 66(3) Income-tax Act, for an order of this Court directing the Income, tax Commissioner to state a case. The circumstances leading to the application are briefly these. The assessee was called upon by a notice under Section 22(2), Income-tax Act, to submit a return, which he did, but the return did not bear such verification as is required by the Income-tax Act, nor did it bear the signature of the assessee. Subsequently the Income-tax Officer issued another notice under Section 22(4), Income-tax Act, directing the assessee to produce his accounts for Sambat 1986-87 on 8 June 1931. He did not however produce his account books as directed by the notice. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment "to the best of his judgment" under Section 23(4), Income-tax Act. The assessment was made on 8 June 1931. Subsequently the assessee made an application for cancellation of the assessment on the allegation that he had misread the notice and was under the impression that the accounts were required to be produced on the 8 July instead of 8 June 1931.

(2.) This application was dismissed, the Income-tax Officer holding that the excuse put forward by the assessee was not correct. An appeal to the Assistant Commissioner was unsuccessful. That officer also held that the assessee failed to establish that there was a bona fide mistake on his part in reading the notice. A revision to the Income-tax Commissioner was also dismissed. The Income-tax Commissioner was asked to state a case under Section 66, Income-tax Act. The application was however rejected. The present application has been made to this Court and it is prayed by the assessee that this Court may direct the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(3), to state a case. Having regard to the finding of fact arrived at by the Income-tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, namely that the excuse put forward by the assessee was not correct, no question of law can possibly arise. The questions which the Commissioner of Income-tax was asked to refer to this Court are mentioned in the affidavit filed by the assessee in support of his application, and we find that those questions do not raise any question of law. We asked the learned advocate for the assessee to formulate the question of law which his client desires this Court to decide after a statement of the case is submitted by the Commissioner. He stated that in so far as the assessee had submitted a return, no case existed for assessment "to the best of judgment." We however find that the Income-tax Officer proceeded under Section 23(4) on two grounds, namely : (1) failure on the part of the assessee to submit a proper return, and (2) failure on his part to produce his account books, any one of which grounds is enough to justify action under Section 23(4). This being so, it is perfectly clear that no question of law can possibly arise on the findings of fact arrived at by the Income-tax Officer and the Income-tax Commissioner.

(3.) The application is rejected with costs, We certify that Mr. Karala Kant Verma, who appeared for the Crown, has earned a fee of Rs. 75 which should be taxed if a certificate therefor is filed within one month.