- (1.) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for opinion to the High Court of Calcutta under Section 66 (2) for the Income-tax Act, 1922: "Was there any evidence before the Tribunal on which it could hold that the business in dealing with shares was distinct and separate from the business of sugar manufacturing and distillery - The High Court recorded their answer in the affirmative. The assessee appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court under section 66-A (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. At the hearing of the appeal this Court was of the view that statement of the case was insufficient to determine the question raised. The Court observe: "In the present case however it is not possible for us to satisfactorily dispose of this appeal because the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal is incomplete and has omitted to state material facts bearing upon the question referred. For instance, it is not clear as to whether the assessee adduced any evidence as to why it started purchasing the shares of the lessor company about six months after the commencement of the lease. It is also not stated by the Tribunal whether there is any evidence of inter-relation between the purchase of shares and the manufacture of sugar." The Court order that the Tribunal be directed to submit the supplementary statement of the case on the following points: "1. What is the nature and description of the refinery acquired by the assessee in 1943 2. What are the dates of commencement of various ventures carried on by the assessee company 3. What is the date of the commencement of the share business Did the share business of the assessee company relate only to the share of the lessor company or whether it related to shares of other companies 4. The Articles of Association of the assessee company and the Memorandum be made part of the case. 5. Was the manufacture of sugar by the assessee company in any way benefited by the purchase of the shares of the lessor company 6. For what reason was the entire block of shares sold in April 1947 to the Produce Exchange Corporation -
(2.) The Tribunal had submitted a supplementary statement of the case and has annexed there to the Articles of Association of the assessee. Even after considering those findings, we find ourselves unable to record our opinion on the questions referred. We may observed that the question which the Tribunal was directed to and did refer was defective and restricted the scope of the enquiry. In our judgment, the question should have been in the following form: "Whether the business of the Company of dealing in shares and the business of manufacturing sugar and other commodities constitute the same business within the meaning of Section 24 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in force in the year of assessment - We re-frame the question accordingly.
(3.) As pointed out by this Court in Commr. of I. T., Madras v. Prithvi Insurance Co., Ltd., 63 ITR 632 =(AIR 1967 SC 853) in determining whether two lines of business constitute the "same business" within the meaning of Section 24 (2) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax authorities must consider the inter-connection, inter-lacing , inter-dependence and unity furnished by the existence of common management, common business organisation, common administration, common fund and a common place of business.;