COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI AND RAJASTHAN vs. THE MEWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 969/1964Supreme Court[1966] 3 S.C.R. 3410 December 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) appealed against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court concerning the assessment year 1943-44. The dispute involved the taxability of Rs. 2,73,488, which the Appellate Tribunal had held not liable to tax. The High Court's judgment was based on a reference made by the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee had filed certain documents as annexures to its application for reference, which the Tribunal attached to the Statement of Case. However, these documents were not mentioned or discussed in the Tribunal's appellate order or the Statement of Case. The High Court had decided questions referred to it in favour of the assessee.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the case must be remanded to the High Court because the relevant facts concerning the item of Rs. 2,73,488 were not clear, and the parties could not agree upon them. The Court also found that it was inconsistent with the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court under the Act for the Appellate Tribunal to attach documents to the Statement of Case that were not mentioned or discussed in its own appellate order or the Statement of Case. If the High Court were to decide disputes based on such unreferenced documents, it would be deciding questions not previously decided by the Tribunal, which it was incompetent to do under the Act. The Court noted that the High Court had omitted to consider the taxability of the Rs. 2,73,488 item, which had been exempted by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court decided to remand the case to the High Court for a decision in accordance with the law, as it was not possible to decide the taxability of the item on the record due to unclear facts and disagreement between parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the profit on amounts received by the assessee's bankers in British India as the price of goods sold by the assessee on railway receipts in the names of consignees, or as the price of goods delivered ex-godown Bhilwara, was liable to tax under the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, specifically concerning the sum of Rs. 2,73,488. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the item of Rs. 2,73,488 was not taxable. They relied on six documents (Annexures Ex. 'T' to 'Y') to demonstrate the manner in which goods were sent and amounts received, suggesting these supported their position on the taxability of the item. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the High Court had omitted to consider the taxability of this item. They also raised a procedural objection regarding the appeal's coverage of this specific item, though this was ultimately not accepted. The Revenue also questioned the propriety of the Tribunal attaching documents not discussed in its order or the Statement of Case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1),Section 66A(2),Section 261

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER 01' INCOME-TAX, DELHI AND RAJAS111AN v. TIU: :\1EWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.

December 10, 1965 IK. ScHBA RAo. J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. S1KRI, JJ.] Income Tax Act, ( 11 vf 1922). s. 66( 1 )-Procedure for refertnce of queslions of law by J'ribunal to l/igh Court-At the instance of asJU.Stt Tribu11a/ an11exin1? frt•Jh dcx:111nenrs, not discussed, to statement of ca.tt- Propriety of.

At the time of making an upplication lo the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 66( 1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to refer ce.W. questions of law to the High Court, the asse~sce filed certain document& as annexures to hi• application and the Tribunal attached these documeut& to the Statement of Case.

There wa.• no mention of any of the documcol< either in the Appellate order of the Tribunal or in the body of the State- ment of Case.

The High Court decided the questions referred to it ia favour of the asses5ec.

On an appeal to thi' Court. HELD : (i) The case must be remanded to the High Coun a• the relevant facts were not clear, nor agreed upon by the parties. (ii) II is not consistent with the advisory juri5diction of a High Uiurt under the Act that the Appellate Tribunal sho

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →