TRICUMCHAND DANSING Vs. CHIEF REVENUE AUTHORITY OF BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of my learned brother Pearson, J., upon certain questions stated for the opinion of the Court under Section 51, Income-tax Act, 1918. The assessees in this case complained of the amount at which they had been assessed for excess profits duty and they applied to this Court and obtained an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Chief Revenue Authority to state certain questions for the opinion of the Court. The Chief Revenue Authority has stated those questions. In the result it appears that it is necessary for this Court to give its opinion upon the first of the questions so stated. That question is thus framed: Whether the time prescribed by Section 26, Act 7, of l918 is to be reckoned from the original demand or from the making of the revised assessment whereby refund was ordered on revision of assessment revised by the Board on 2 December, 1921.

(2.) That question becomes more or less intelligible on consideration of the following facts: The assessees were engaged in three different places including Serajgunj in the District of Pabna in the business of jute, The year for which they were being assessed was the year 1919-20 and on 15 March 1920 a notice of demand was served upon them for income-tax at a certain figure. On 25 March 1920 a notice of demand was served upon them for excess profits duty. According to that notice of demand it would appear that they had to pay in respect of excess profits duty the substantial sum of Rs. 8,384 which they, pending subsequent proceedings, paid. Now, against the assessment to income-tax they appealed to the Commissioner under Section 21, Income-tax Act, 1918. They persuaded the Commissioner that, for the previous year in question they had made no profit and to use the language of Section 22, Income-tax Act, he cancelled the assessment. As regards the assessment to excess profits duty the petitioners lodged a petition with the Chief Revenue Authority as required by the Excess Profits Duty Act.

(3.) Upon this matter coming before the Chief Revenue Authority that authority took the view, differing from the view that the Commissioner had taken in dealing with the income-tax assessment that the profits had been calculated on the wrong accounting period, that they ought not to have been calculated on Sambat 1975 but either Sambat 1974 or else for the ordinary financial year ending with the 31 March 1919. They remitted the matter on this question of the excess profits duty to the Commissioner. He remitted it to the Collector. The Collector had a report made to him by the assessor and it then appears that the Collector heard the parties, heard what they had to say upon the assessor's report and came to the conclusion that the profits for the purpose amounted to Rs. 77,000. The assessees say that they got no opportunity of examining the assessor's report, but the statement of the case made to the Court by the member of the Board of Revenue is to the contrary. The matter went to the Commissioner. He estimated and held that the profits were Rs. 49,397. Then the matter went to the Chief Revenue Authority by an application which was dealt with on 2nd December 1921. The Chief Revenue Authority came to the conclusion that the figure at which the Commissioner had arrived was the correct figure and accordingly on that basis out of Rs. 8,384 which had been paid on the original assessment, a refund to the assessees was due of Rs. 1,419 and that refund was made. The order of the Commissioner cancelling the assessee's assessment to income-tax and directing a refund of the money paid in that respect was never interfered with and ultimately the assessees obtained refund of all that they had paid for income-tax and they were therefore in the position that, while under Section 19, Income-tax Act, 1918 this might be adjusted upon the actual figures at the end of the year of assessment, the assessees have no grievance in respect of income-tax. Their grievance has reference to excess profits-duty. They say that on going into the assessor's report on the basis of which the Chief Revenue Authority assessed them to excess profits duty on the basis of profits of Rs. 49,397 they discovered that there were three palpable mistakes. In one case by a slip of pen the figure 1. has come before the figure 5 making a difference of Rs. 10,000. It is said also that when you look at the assessor's report you find that he has taken the. closing stock as part of the income for the year. In other words, they say upon, an inspection of the assessor's report that it contains obvious and undoubted-mistakes. Now, on none of the affidavits in this matter and (we are assured by Mr. Bose for the assessees) in no-affidavits before any revenue authority have these allegations as to these palpable mistakes been disputed.