# INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME·TA:X, (CENTRAL) BOMBAY

- **Citation:** [1966] 2 S.C.R. 651
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-11-19
- **Bench:** A. K. Sarkar, J. R. Mudholkar, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/indore-malwa-united-mills-v-commissioner-of-income-ta-x-central-bombay-3734
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 4(1) (9)-Assessee a non-resident-Receiving cheques by post from Government of India-Post office whether agent
of assessee or of Government of India-Income whether taxable
in British India.
The appellant-company carried on the business of manufacturing
textile goods at Indore and had offices at Indore and Bombay.
During
its account years 1942 to 1947 it supplied goods to the Indian Stores
Department, Government of India. The purchase orders were placed
by the latter with the appellant at Indore which was !hen in an Indian
State. On receipt of bills from the appellant the Government of India
used to draw cheques on the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, in favour
of the appellant and used to send them by post to the appellant at
Indore. The appellant used to deposit the cheques with the Imperial
Bank of India Indora for the purpose of realisation from the Reserve
Bank of India.
In connection with the assessment years 1943-44
to
1948-49 the question that arose in 'income-tax proceedings was whether
the profits of the appellant-a non-resident-in respect of the supplies
were received by the appellant in British India and therefore taxable
under s. 4(1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The departmental
authorities held that the payment was received by the appellant at Bombay where the cheques were e11cashed but the Appellate Tribunal took
the view that the payment was received at Indore. In reference the
High Court held on the basis of this Court's decision in Commissioner
of Income-tax v. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. (1954) 25 I.T.R. 547 which had
meanwhile been delivered that the cheques \Vere received by the assessee
through its agent, the post office in British India and further held that the
Revenue authorities were entitled to raise the contention for the llr!t
time in the High Court.
With certificate the appellant came to this
Court.
HELD: (i) Whereas in the present case the question of law in issue between the parties and referred to the High Court is the broad question whether
or not the assessee is liable to pay tax on the ground that the sale proceeds including the profits of the sale were received by the assessee in
British India, the Revenue authorities may be. permitted to argue for
the first time at the hearing of the reference that on the facts folllld by the
Tribunal, the post office was the. agent of the assessee for the purpose
of receiving the cheques repre'>enting the sale proceeds and the asscssee
received the sale proceeds in British India where the cheques! were posted
though this aspect of the question was not argued before the Tribunal and
though the, only point the_-e argued was that the proceeds we:~ received
at Bombay where the cheques were encashed. (655 HJ
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mis. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [1955]
1 S.C.R. 185, Zorasw & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1961]
1 S.C.R. 210 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam
H
Navigation Co. Ltd., [1962] 1 S.C.R. 788, referred to.
The New lahanglr Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commission.r of Income-tax
[1960] 1 S.C.R. 249 and Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner
of
Income-tax, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 908, di•tinguished.
652
SUPREME COURT .R.EPOllTS
(1%6] 2 S.C.R.
(ii) If by an agreement, express or implied, between the creditor A
and the debtor or by request, express or implied, by the crediior, the
debtor is authorised to pay the debt by a cheque and to send the cheque
to the creditor by post, the po•t office is the agent of the creditor to
receive tlte cheque and the creditor receives
payment as
soon as
the
cheque is posted to him.
(656 G]
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mis. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., (1955)
I S.C.R. 185, Jagdish Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax,
[1960) I S.C.R. 236, Norman v. Ricketts, ( 1886) 3 Times Law Reports
182 and Thairlwa/l v. The Great Northern Railway, [1910) 2 K.B. 509,
relied on.
(iii) In the in.slant case cl. 9 of the terms and conditions of the contract read with
the prescribed f

## Text

•
•
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME·TA:X, (CENTRAL) BOMBAY
November 19, 1965
[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.]
Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 4(1) (9)-Assessee a non-resident-Receiving cheques by post from Government of India-Post office whether agent
of assessee or of Government of India-Income whether taxable
in British India.
The appellant-company carried on the business of manufacturing
textile goods at Indore and had offices at Indore and Bombay.
During
its account years 1942 to 1947 it supplied goods to the Indian Stores
Department, Government of India. The purchase orders were placed
by the latter with the appellant at Indore which was !hen in an Indian
State. On receipt of bills from the appellant the Government of India
used to draw cheques on the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, in favour
of the appellant and used to send them by post to the appellant at
Indore. The appellant used to deposit the cheques with the Imperial
Bank of India Indora for the purpose of realisation from the Reserve
Bank of India.
In connection with the assessment years 1943-44
to
1948-49 the question that arose in 'income-tax proceedings was whether
the profits of the appellant-a non-resident-in respect of the supplies
were received by the appellant in British India and therefore taxable
under s. 4(1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The departmental
authorities held that the payment was received by the appellant at Bombay where the cheques were e11cashed but the Appellate Tribunal took
the view that the payment was received at Indore. In reference the
High Court held on the basis of this Court's decision in Commissioner
of Income-tax v. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. (1954) 25 I.T.R. 547 which had
meanwhile been delivered that the cheques \Vere received by the assessee
through its agent, the post office in British India and further held that the
Revenue authorities were entitled to raise the contention for the llr!t
time in the High Court.
With certificate the appellant came to this
Court.
HELD: (i) Whereas in the present case the question of law in issue between the parties and referred to the High Court is the broad question whether
or not the assessee is liable to pay tax on the ground that the sale proceeds including the profits of the sale were received by the assessee in
British India, the Revenue authorities may be. permitted to argue for
the first time at the hearing of the reference that on the facts folllld by the
Tribunal, the post office was the. agent of the assessee for the purpose
of receiving the cheques repre'>enting the sale proceeds and the asscssee
received the sale proceeds in British India where the cheques! were posted
though this aspect of the question was not argued before the Tribunal and
though the, only point the_-e argued was that the proceeds we:~ received
at Bombay where the cheques were encashed. (655 HJ
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mis. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [1955]
1 S.C.R. 185, Zorasw & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1961]
1 S.C.R. 210 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam
H
Navigation Co. Ltd., [1962] 1 S.C.R. 788, referred to.
The New lahanglr Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commission.r of Income-tax
[1960] 1 S.C.R. 249 and Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner
of
Income-tax, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 908, di•tinguished.
652
SUPREME COURT .R.EPOllTS
(1%6] 2 S.C.R.
(ii) If by an agreement, express or implied, between the creditor A
and the debtor or by request, express or implied, by the crediior, the
debtor is authorised to pay the debt by a cheque and to send the cheque
to the creditor by post, the po•t office is the agent of the creditor to
receive tlte cheque and the creditor receives
payment as
soon as
the
cheque is posted to him.
(656 G]
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mis. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., (1955)
I S.C.R. 185, Jagdish Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax,
[1960) I S.C.R. 236, Norman v. Ricketts, ( 1886) 3 Times Law Reports
182 and Thairlwa/l v. The Great Northern Railway, [1910) 2 K.B. 509,
relied on.
(iii) In the in.slant case cl. 9 of the terms and conditions of the contract read with
the prescribed form of the bills and the
instructions
regarding payment showed that the parties had agreed that the assessee
would submit to the Government of India, Department of Supply, New
Delhi, bills in the prescribed form requesting payment of the price of the
supplies by cheques together with signed receipts and the Government
of India would pay the price by crossed cheques drawn in favour of the
assessee. Having regard to the fact that the assessee. was at Indore and
the Supply Department of the Government of India was at New Delhi,
the parties must have intended that the Government
would
send till>
cheques to the assessee by post from New Delhi, and this inference was
B
c
supported by the fact the cheques used to be sent to the assessee by D
post. In the circumstances there was an implied agreement between the
parties that the Government of India would send the cheques by post.
The Government of India was entitled to ignore the subsequ0'1t request
of the assessee fur cheques on an Indore bank and the asscssce recei~ed
payment of the price as and when the Cbe<Jues on the Reserve Bank
of India Bombay, were posted in British India in accordance with the
contract.
(657 D; 658 A]
Thalrlwall v. The Great Narthern Railway, (1910) 2 K.B. 509 and
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Patney cl Co. (1959) 36 I.T.R. 488,
referred to.
•
•
•
•
On the above view the profits in respect of the sales were taxable
• . .:l!!l_.
tinders. 4(l)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
":'ill
Crvru APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 10061011 of 1963.
F
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 25,
1959 of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 36
of 1955.
G. S. Pathak, B. Dutta, R. J. Ko/ah and J.B. Dadachanji, for
the appellant.
G
Niren De, Addi. Solicitur-General, Gopal Singh and R. N.
Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
Bacbawat, J. These appeals arise out of proceedings for assess-
~
ment of income-tax of the appellant Company
(hereinafter
H
referred to as the assessee) for the assessment years, 1943-44,
,.
1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49, the relevant
•
INDORE MILLS v. C.I.T. (Bachawat, J.)
653
A accounting years being the Calendar years, 1942, 1943, 1944,
1945, 1946 and 1947 respectively.
During the relevant accounting years, the assessee was a nonresident.
It carried on the business of manufacturing textile
goods at Indore then situated in an Indian State, and had offices
at Indore and Bombay.
The assessee supplied goods
to
the
B Indian Stores Department, Government of India, under purchase
orders placed by the latter with the assessee at Indore. Duplicate
copies of the purchase orders signed on behalf of the assessee at
Indore used to be sent to the Government of India in British India.
The goods used to be inspected at Indore by an inspecting officer
c of the Government and the inspection certificates were issued at
Indore.
One of the conditions of the contract was that the delivery would be F.O.R., Indore, and the freight from Indore would
be borne by the Government of India.
The goods used to be
despatched by railway from Indore station and the railway receipts
used to be made out in the name of a representative of the GovD
ernment. There were two types of purchase orders, namely, ( 1)
purchasewar order and (2) bulk purchase order.
Clause 9 of the
bulk purchase order was in these terms :
E
"9. Payment : Unless otherwise agreed between the
parties, payment for the delivery of the stores will be
made on submission of bills in the prescribed form in
accordance with the instructions given in the Acceptance of Tender by cheque on a Government Treasury
in British India or on a branch in British India of the
Reserve Bank of India or the Imperial Bank of India
transacting Government business."
F From the judgment of K. T. Desai, J. it appears that in the High
Court both parties agreed that the aforesaid cl. 9 was one of the
terms on which all the goods were supplied by the assessee. In
paragraph 2 of the petition for leave to appeal to this Court and
paragraph 3 of the appellant's statement of case also, the assessee
stated that the contracts between the parties were subject to the
G aforesaid cl. 9.
The prescribed form of the bill
(Form No.
H
WSB. 116) which the assessee was required to submit to the Government of India, Department of Supply, contained inter alia, the
following receipt clause :
',Received payment
Contractor's
signature
one anna
receipt
stamp on
original
only
Please pay by cheque
to
-~~! __ .on
Ba~~-
Bank
Treasury
at .................... .
Contractor's signature."
654
SUPREME COURT ll.EPOll.TS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
Instructions Nos. 13 and 14 with regard to payment were
as
follows :
"13. If payment is desired to be made to the Contractor's Bankers or other parties, the endorsement
must be completed on the Bill Form (W.S.B. Form
No. 116) and signed separately and the word
'Self
scored out; in addition, a power of attorney will be
necessary in such cases, except when payment is desired
to a Bank mentioned in the second schedule to the
Reserve Bank Act.
14. Payment in all cases will be made to the Contractors by the Accounts Officer named in the Acceptance of Tender by means of crossed cheques, unless a
specific request is made to the contrary for the issue of
an open cheque on the bill."
A
B
c
The asscssee used to make out bills in the prescribed form.
The
receipt clause in the completed bill used to be in the following
D
terms : "Please pay by cheque to self on a bank at Indore."
The receipt clause in the bill used to be signed in advance on
behalf of the assessee on a one anna stamp. The bills with the
signed receipts of the assessee then used to be sent to the Controller of Supplies, New Delhi after the latter was debited with the
amounts of the bills in the books of the assessee.
On receipt of
the bills, the Government of India used to draw cheques on the
Reserve Bank of India, Bombay in favour of the assessee and
used to send them by post to the assessee at Indore. On receipt
of the cheques, the assessee used to credit the Controller of Supplies in its books with the amount of the cheques, _and then used
to deposit the cheques in their account with the Imperial Bank of
India, Indore, and thereupon, the Bank used to credit the assessee
in the aforesaid account with the amount of the cheques.
The question is whether on these facts the profits
of the
assessee, a non-resident, in respect of the supplies were received
by. the assessee
in British India and, therefore, taxable under
s. 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Before the
Appellate Tribunal and at all stages of the assessment proceedings,
the contention of the revenue authorities was that the profits· were
received at Bombay where the cheques on the Reserve Bank of
India, Bombay were encashed.
By its order dated March 13,
1953, the Appellate Tribunal negatived this contention, and held
that the amounts of the cheques were received by it at Indore.
On the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
E
F
G
H
•
•
•
•
•
-
INDORE MILLS v. C.I. T. (Bachawat, J.)
655
A Bomba)' under s. 66 ( 1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the
Tribunal by its order dated March 4, 1955 referred the following
question of law to the Bombay High Court :
"Whether the assessee Company is liable to pay tax
in the taxable territories on the ground that the sale
B
proceeds, which included the profit element therein,
were received in the taxable territories ?"
In its order dated March 4, 1955, the Tribunal referred to the
decision of this Court in Commission.er of Income-tax v. Kirlpskar
BrQ3. Ltd.(') decided on April 19, 1954, and stated that on the
C facts of the case, a contention might arise that the assessee had
requested the Government to send the cheque by post and the post
office as the agent of the assessee, had received the cheques in
British India, but the Tribunal pointed out that this contention
had not been raised before it.
The reference under s. 66 ( 1) was heard by a Division Bench
D of the Bombay High Court consisting of J. C. Shah and S. T.
Desai, JJ. J. C. Shah, J. answered the question referred to the
High Court in the affirmative, whereas S. T. Desai, J. answered
it in the negative.
The matter then went before the third Judge,
K. T. Desai, J. who agreed with J. C. Shah, J. and answered the
E question in the affirmative.
The majority of the Judges held that
the cheques were received by the assessee through its agent, the
post office in British India and the Revenue authorities were
entitled to urge this contention for the first time in the High Court.
The assessee now appeals to this Court on a certificate granted
by the Bombay High Court.
F
G
In the appeals before us, the following two questions arise :
(1 ) Was the post office the agent of the assessee to receive the
cheques representing the sale proceeds on its behalf, and did the
a5sessee consequently receive the sale proceeds through its agent
in British India; and (2) whether the Revenue authorities could
raise this contention for the first time at the hearing of the reference before the High Court, though this contention was not raised
by it before the Tribunal or at any stage of the assessment proceedings?
Where, as in this case, the question of law in issue between
the parties and referred to the High Court is the board question
li whether or not the assessee is liable to pay tax on the ground that
the sale proceeds including the profits of the sale were received
(I} (1954) 25 I.T.R. 547.
656
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
by the assessee in British India, the Revenue authorities may be
permitted to argue for the first time at the hearing of the reference
that on the facts found by the Tribunal, the post office was the
agent of the assessee for the purpose of receiving the cheques
representing the sale proceeds and the assessee received the sale
proceeds in British India where the cheques were posted, though
this aspect of the question was not argued before the Tribunal
and though the only point there argued was that the sale proceeds
were received at Bombay where the cheques were encashed. See
The Commissioner of lncome-tax v. Messrs. Ogale Glass Works
Ltd(1 ) Zoraster & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax( 2 ). See
also Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (8). The decision in The New lehangir Vakil
Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax(') relied on by the
assessee is distinguishable.
There, the question of law referred
to the High Court was "Whether the receipt of the cheques at
Bhavnagar amounted to receipt of sale proceeds in Bhavnagar ?",
A
B
c
and this question was not broad enough to cover the enquiry D
whether there were postings of the cheques at the request
of the assessee and receipts of the cheques by the assessee through
the post office in .British India.
The precise point decided by this
Court in the New lehangir Vakil Mills'(') case was that the High
Court has no jurisdiction under s. 66 ( 4) to direct the Tribunal
to collect evidence not already on the record and to make it a
part of a supplementary statement of case, and this decision was
fo1Iowed and affirmed recently in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of lncome-tax(").
But, in the instant case, the High
Court did not call for any supplementary statement of case. Nor
E
is the question of law refered in this case a narrow one as in tl;te
New /ehangir Vakil Mills' case(') so as to exclude consideration
P
of the contention that the assessee received the sale proceeds
through its agent, the post office in British India.
We are, therefore, satisfied that the Revenue authorities can raise this contention
for the first time in the High Court.
The next question is whether the post office was the agent of
the assessee to receive the cheques representing the sale proceeds
G
and whether the assessee received the sale proceeds in British India
where the cheques were posted. Now, if by an agreement, express
or implied, between the creditor and the debtor or by a request,
express or implied, by the creditor, the debtor is authorised to
pay the debt by a cheque and to send the cheque to the creditor
(I} [19SSJ 1 S.C.R. 185.
(3) [1962) I S.C.R. 788, 814.
(5) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 908.
(2) (1961) I S.C.R. 210.
(4) [1960) I S.C.R. 249:
H
•
•
,
•
•
•
•
•
}
INDORE MILLS v. C.I.T. (Bachawat, J.)
657
A by post, the post office is the agent of the creditor to receive the
cheque and the creditor receives payment as soon as the cheque
is posted to him.
See The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs.
Ogale Glass Works Ltd.(1), Jagdish Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of lnce>me-tax(') approving Norman v. Ricketts( 3 ), ThairB
lwall v. The Great Northern Railway('). In Messrs. Oga/e Glass
Works' case('), there was an express request by the assessee at
Aundh to its debtor in Delhi to remit the amount of the bills by
cheques.
In Jagdish Mills case(2 ), there was a stipulation between the assessee and its debtor that the debtor in Delhi should
pay the assessee in Baroda the amount due to the assessee by
cheques, and this Court held that there was by necessary impliC cation a request by the assessee to the debtor to send the cheques
by post from Delhi, thus constituting the post office its agent for
the purpose of receiving the payments.
In the instant case,
cl. 9 of the terms and conditions of the contract read with the
prescribed form of the bills and the instructions regarding payment
D
show that the parties had agreed that the assessee would submit
to the Government of India, Department of Supply, New Delhi,
bills in the prescribed form requesting payment of the price of the
supplies by cheques together with signed receipts and the Government of India WOl!lld pay the price by crossed cheques drawn in
favour of the assessee.
l!aving regard to the fact that the assessee
t
was at Indore and the Supply Department of the Government
of India was at New Delhi, the parties must have intended that
the Government would send the cheques to the assessee by post
from New Delhi, and this inference is supported by the fact that
the cheques used to be sent to the assessee by post. In the circumstances, there was an implied agreement between the parties
F that the Government of India would send the cheques to
the
assessee by post.
G
H
Mr. Pathak argued that the assessee had requested the Government to pay money by cheques on a bank at Indore and as
that request was not complied with and the Government of India
sent instead cheques on the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, there
was no effective request by the assessee to the Government to send
the cheque by post.
But independently of any subsequent request
by the assessee, the contract between the parties authorised the
Government of India to pay the price by cheques drawn on the
Reserve Bank of India, Bombay and imported a request by the
assessee to the Government of India to send the cheques by post.
(1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 185.
(3) (1886) 3 Times Law Reports. 182.
(2) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 236.
(4) [1910] 2 K.B. 509.
6 58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
The Government of India was entitled to ignore the subsequent
request of the assessee for cheques on an Indore bank and. the
assessee received payments of the price as and when the cheques
on the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay were posted in British
India in accordance with the contract.
In Thairlwall v. Great
Northern Railway(') Lord Coleridge, J. observed :
"The real question is whether the posting of the
warrant was payment of the amount of the dividend.
To establish that it was, the defendants must prove a
request by the plaintiff or an agreement between the
plaintiff and
the defendants that payment should be
A
B
made by means of a warrant posted to the plaintiff. If
C
such a request or agreement is proved, then payment is
established by posting even although the instrument is
lost in the post: Norman v. Rlcketts( 2 )."
Mr. Pathak contended that the assesseee and the Government
of India had agreed that the sale proceeds would be paid to the
D
assessee in Indore outside British India, and therefore the rule in
Messrs. Ogale Glass Works' case(') did not apply, having regard
to the decision in Commission·er of Income-tax v. Patney &
Co.(4). We are not inclined to accept this contention. There is
'
•
nothing on the record to show that there was any express agreo-
•
ment between the parties that the sale proceeds would be paid to
I:
the assessee at Indore. We are satisfied that the post office was the
agent of the assessee for the purpose of receiving the cheques
.1
representing the sale proceeds and the assessee received the sale
proceeds in British India where the cheques were posted, and
consequently, the profits in respect of the sales were taxable under
F
s. 4(1)(a). The High Court, therefore, rightly answered the
question in the affirmative.
Mr. Pathak and following him Mr. Kolab submitted that the
assessee would have led additional evidence to disprove the contention that the post office acted as its agent, had that contention
been raised before the Tribunal, and the Revenue authorities
should not, therefore, have been a!lowed by the High Court to
raise the new contention.
On being asked what additional evidence would have been led by the assessee, counsel said that the
assessee would have Jed evidence to show {a) that the purchase
orders were accepted by the assessee under compulsion of the
(1) (1910) 2 K.B. 509.
(3) (1955) I S.C.R. 185.
(2) (1886) 3 Times Law Reports 182.
(4) (1959) 361.T,R. 488.
G
H
•
,.
,,
INDORE MILLS v. C.I.T. (Bachawat, J.)
6 59
A Defence of India Act and Rules and consequently there was no
voluntary request by the assessee for payment by cheques, and
(b) t!Ie Imperial Bank of India, Indore, as t!Ie statutory agent
of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, paid t!Ie amount of the
cheques to t!Ie assessee at Indore.
But counsel was unable to
show any provision of t!Ie Defence of India Act or Rules under
B which t!Ie assessee was obliged to accept the purchase orders, and
we need not, tlierefore, enquire into the correctness of counsel's
assumption t!Iat acceptance of the purchase orders under compulsion of law would have negatived t!Ie contention tliat the post
office acted as the agent of tlie assessee.
And if the assessee
received payment by cheques posted in British India, the fact tliat
C subsequently t!Ie Imperial Bank of India, Indore as the statutory
agent of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay paid the amount of
tlie cheques at Indore would not take tlie case of the assessee out
of t!Ie purview of s. 4 (I )(a) . We are, tlierefore, satisfied that
tlie assessee was not prevented from adducing any material eviD deuce by reason of the omission of the Revenue authorities to argue
the new point before the Tribunal.
We do not, therefore, think
it necessary to express any opinion on the question whether the
Court should refuse to allow the Revenue authorities to raise a
new contention where by reason of tlieir omission to raise the
contention before the Tribunal, the assessee had been prevented
E from adducing material evidence on the point.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed witli costs, one set.
Appeals dismissed.