LexM/S. ZORASTER AND CO. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI, AJMER, RAJASTHAN AND MADHYA BHARAT (NOW) MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
210 SL'.PIU~;\fE COURT REPORTS [Hl61] '960 standard to satisfy the test of" active member". The burden which lies upon the petitio1wr who impoaches A M;ad1"1""Ghai dh the validity of the classification to show that it 111a11a a cui t • • . v. violates tho guarantee of equal protcctwn has not been n, Fua,;u of discharged. On the material placed before us we can- IHd•a not say that the p<'riod fixed by the Govornme111. as the standard fur ascertaining tho active mcmberohip Suil,a Rao J b. bl ur k 1 August 17. · is ar 1trary or·unn•asOIHL e. n e must ma e it c ear that this finding must be confined only to tho validity of the impugned uotification dated August 31, 1956. The petition accordingly fails and is di"sruissed with costs. Petition dismissed. :\1/S. ZORASTER AKD CO. v. THE CO:\IMISSlONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI, AJMEH, RAJASTHAN A~D MADHYA BHARAT (NOW) MADHYA PltADESH. (S. K. DAs, M. HrnAYATULLAn AND .r. C. SHAII, JJ.) Income-lax - Reference -- l'cr.vcr of High Courl tu call for supplemental stalemetit of case-·- Indian Jnco~-tax Act, 1922 (I I of 1922), S. 66(4). The appellant entered into contract with Government for the supply of goods, and in the assessment year 1942-43 Rs. 10.~0.653 and in the assessment year 1943-44. Rs. 17.4),336 were assessed as its income by the lnco1ne-tax Officer. 1'hc sup- plies to Govcrnn1ent were made f. o. r. Jaipur by the appellant, and payment \\'as by cheques \vhich \\'ere received at Jaipur. The contention of the appellant v.·as that this income \\'as received at Jaipur outside the then taxable territories. l'his contention was not accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tri- bunal, Delhi. The appellant then applied for a reference to the High Court under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and by its order dated December 10, 1952, the Tribunal referred the following question for the decision of the High Court. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the profits and gains in res~ct of the sales made to the Government ' I 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 211 ' of India were received by the assessee in the taxable terri- tories?" . , The High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for a supplemental statement of case calling for a finding on the ques- tion " whether the cheques were sent to the assessee firm by post or by hand and what directions, if any, had the assessee firm g_1ven to the department-in the maiter ". The appellant ques- tioned the order of the High Court relying on the decision in New ]ehangir Vakil Mill's case>--£1960] l S,C.R. 249. - Held, that the enquiry in such cases must be to see whether the question decided by the Tribunal admits of 'the consideration of the new point as ·an integral or an incidental part thereof. The supplemental statement· which the Tribunal is directed to· submit must arise from the facts.admitted and/or found by the Tribunal and should nof open the door to fresh evidence. · H e/d, further, that the question as framed in this case wa~ wide enough to inc;lude an enquiry into whether there was any request, express or implied, th.at the amount of the hills be paid by cheques so as to bring the matter within the dicta of this Court in the Ogale Glass l:Vorks case, [1955] r S.C,R.· 185 .or Jagdish Mills case, [1960] l S,C,R. 236. . ln the absence of anything expressly said in the Ordet of the High Court to the contrary, it cannot be held that the direc- tion given would lead inevitably to the admitting of fresh evid- ence as that has been prohibited by the New Jehangir Vakil Mills case. The New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, [1960] r S,C.R. 249, distinguished. ]agdish Milis Ltd. v, Commission~r of Income-tax, [1960] r S,C.R. 236, Keshav Mills Co, Ltd., v, Commissioner of. Income-tax, [1950] 18 LTR. 407,,Sir Sobha Singh v. Commissioner of 1ncome- tax, [1950] lS I.T.R. 998, Kirlo>kar Bros, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, I 19s2J Zt l.T.R.' ~2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ogal"- Glass Works Ltd, [1955) l S.CR. 185, Commissioner of Income-tax v .. Kirldskar Bros. Ltd., [1954) 25 I.T.R. 547 and Mrs. Kusumbrn D. Mahadevia, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income· tqx, BoJllbay, [1960] 3 S,CR. 417, 'eferred to. , , _CIVIL .APPELLATE ,JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1958. ·, '· ,,, .. A ppPal by spepjal leave from the judgment and order dated l\1ar9h: 24, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Refe/e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.