Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Gunda Subbayya vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 27 October, 1933

Singh Engineering Works, Kanpur vs Commr. Of Income-Tax, United ... on 4 February, 1953

13. Reference has also been made to a Full. Bench decision of the Madras High Court in --'Gunda Subbayya v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras', AIR 1939 Mad 371 (E) and on the strength of that decision it is urged that there is no real difference between an, assessment under Section 23(3) and that made under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act and both have to be justified on the ground of materials available on the record. The point did not really arise in that case. The only point that was raised was whether, when an Income-tax Officer sits down to make an assessment under Section 23(3), and finds that the evidence produced before him is not satisfactory, he can make a best: judgment assessment under Section 23(4). In the course of the judgment, however, the learned Chief Justice pointed out :
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Sugan Chand Suraogi vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 September, 1963

8-10. In the present appeal Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the aforesaid decision of Mr. Justice Sinha both on merits as well as on the question of law decided by his Lord-; ship. Like Mr. Sinha, J. we too are of opinion that even though the matter can be disposed of on the preliminary objection, still we should also enter into the merits. Mr. Mitra suggests that in view of the report of the Income Tax Officer determining Rs. 1,18,000/- as gross receipt from brokerage, a taxable profit of Rs, 1,75,000/- is inherently impossible and demonstratively erroneous. We are unable to accept this suggestion made by Mr. Mitra. [After considering the case on merits his Lordship concluded : ] We are of opinion that the order of the Commissioner is not liable to be quashed on the ground that the Commissioner in passing the said order acted contrary to the principles laid down either in Commr. of Income-tax v. Laxminarain Badridas or in Gunda Subbayya v. Commr. of Income-tax Madras, (1939) 7 I T R 21 : (AIR 1939 Mad 371) (SB) or in Sun Insurance Office v. Clark, (1912) 6 Tax Cas 59. We also are of opinion that order of the Commissioner is not liable to be quashed on the ground of error of law apparent on the face of the record. No doubt, the Commissioner says in one place of his order that the books of account cannot be made the basis of assessment when an ex parte assessment is going to be framed. It cannot be said that he ignored the cooks of account altogether in making his estimate of the business income of the appellant. In the context in which he has stated that the books of account cannot be made the basis of assessment when ex parte assessment is going to be framed, it is indeed difficult to understand what he really means. He may mean that the assessment being ex parte it was not possible for the Income-tax Officer to make the books of account the basis of assessment or it may be that he has laid it down as a general proposition of law. However, whatever may be in the mind of the Commissioner in making the aforesaid statement, it is clear that his estimate of the business income of the assessee was not in any way influenced by that statement. That being the position we cannot agree with Mr. Mitra that the order of the Commissioner is liable to be quashed on the ground that there is an error of law apparent on the face of record. We are reluctant to interfere with the order of the Commissioner on merits also for another reason. According to Mr. Mitra the Commissioner should have computed the taxable income on fresh materials and he wants us to quash his order for failing to do so. We are not sure whether the Commissioner is entitled to compute income on mateiials that were not available to the Income-tax Officer.
Calcutta High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mohanlal Vishram vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 14 December, 1962

It is well-settled that even apart from that proviso, the Income-tax Officer may, for good and sufficient reasons, reject the account books as unreliable and make an assessment Under Section 23(3) of that Act: Gunda Subbayya v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1939] 7 I.T.R. 21 F.B.. So far as this case is concerned, we consider it sufficient to say that there was no burden on the assessing authorities to prove by positive evidence that the account books were unreliable and further that the conclusion that the account books are unreliable is a conclusion of fact: Ganga Ram Balmokand v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab [1937] 5 I.T.R. 464. In view of this position, our answer to the first question is that even if the account books are regularly maintained and no flaw can be discovered in those books, the assessing authorities are not bound to accept them if they be found to be otherwise unreliable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengal. on 11 January, 1944

In Gunda Subbayya v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, reported in 1939, 7 Income-tax Reports, Sir Lionel Leach, C.J., in delivering judgment says at page 27 of the Reports, "When he (i.e. the Income-tax Officer) has material on which he can assess, he must consider it and make an assessment to the best of his judgment. I use the word material advisedly because the Income-tax Officer is not confined to what would be evidence in a Court of law".
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Fagumani Khuntia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 February, 1960

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the Madras case in Gunda Subbayya and their own previous decision in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Case 1955 SCR 941: ((S) AIR 1955 SC 65) as also the Lahore decision in Seth Gurumukh Singh's case 1944-12 ITR 393: (AIR 1944 Lah 353 (2)) and held that the assessment having been based on no material cannot stand. Thus, it was observed that the assessing authority purporting to act under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Bihar Sales-Tax Act cannot assess the amount of tax due from the dealer more or less arbitrarily or without basing the assessment on any material whatsoever and on pure guess.
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muralimohan Prabhudayal vs State Of Orissa on 3 February, 1970

In the Madras case, their Lordships of the Full Bench enunciated that the principle of natural justice had application to an assessment proceeding under a taxing statute where particular materials were proposed to be used against the assessee. In the language of their Lordships, the assessing authority should draw the assessee's attention and give him an opportunity to show that the officer's information is wrong.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

A.A. Ansari Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 14 October, 1952

In Gunda Subbayya v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, it was pointed out by a Bench of the Madras High court consisting of Sir Lionel Leach, C.J. Madhavan Nair, J., and Varadachariar, J. that the only difference between an assessment under sub-section (3) in a case where the assessee's books are found unreliable and ar rejected and the assessee fails to produce other evidence, and an assessment under sub-section (4) is that the act contemplates a more summary method when the income tax officer is acting under sub-section (4).
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.A. Ansari vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 14 October, 1952

In -- 'Gunda Subbayya v. Commr. of Inc. Tax, Madras', AIR 1939 Mad 371 (A) it was pointed out by a bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Sir Lionel Leach, Chief Justice, Madhavan Nair J. and Varadachariar J. that the only difference between an assessment under Sub-section (3) in a case where the assessee's books are found unreliable and are rejected and the assesses fails to produce other evidence, and an assessment under Sub-section (4) is that the Act contemplates a more summary method when the Income-tax Officer is acting under Sub-section (4). To the same effect is the judgment of the Rangoon High Court in -- 'Commr. of Inc. Tax.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next