Kapur J. - (1.) This is a rule obtained by an assesses against the Commissioner of Income-tax Punjab to show cause why a case should not bo stated under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act.
(2.) The matter relates to the assessment year 1944-15. During the account year 1942-43 the asses-see made one sale on credit in Jubbal State amounting to Rs. 1,91,000/- to one person in one lot. During the account period 1943-44, he realised from the buyer Rs. 1,57,000/- out of Which Rs. 1,25,000/-were realised in Jubbal State, Rs. 29,000/- was paid by the buyer to the assessee in British India and Rs. 3,000/- was paid by the buyer to a third per-son who was a creditor of the assessee. This was also in British India. This amount was squared up, it is so alleged upon the assessee's instructions to his constituents in Jubbal State. The total received in British India was thus Rs. 32,000/- and the proat earned in the account year was found by the Income-tax Appellate Authority to be Rs. 18,766/-.
(3.) Upon these facts the assessee asked the Appellate Tribunal to state the following five questions of law: "(i) Whether in the circumstances of the case there is any material for the finding that instead of direct remittance the assessee has chosen to Instruct a debtor in Jubbal state to discharge a part of his debt by making the payment of Rs. 32,000/- in British India. (ii) Whether in the circumstances of the case the receipt of Rs. 32,000/- has been correctly held to be a constructive remittance from Jubbal State to British India. (iii) Whether in the circumstances of the case it has been correctly held that the assessee remitted the entire profits of the account year 1942-43 in the sum of Rs. 32,000/-. (iv) Is there any evidence to support the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the sale proceeds of Rs. 32,000/- received in British India include entire profits earned or accrued in Jubbal State in the account year 1942-43. (v) Whether there is any material on the record to justify a conclusion that sum of Rs. 32,000/-received in British India was 'income' and therefore liable to be taxed." But by their order dated 7-8-1950 the Appellate Tribunal held that by choosing to realise the sale proceeds in British India rather than in Jubbal State the assessee made constructive remittances of money to British India and it "may conceivably give rise to a question of law", but they were of the opinion that the answer was so obvious that it was useless making reference. They also said that the finding that the sum of Rs. 32,000/- included the available profits is a "conclusion of fact" from which no question of law can be raised and this conclusion was arrived at upon an examination of the magnitude and requirements of the business carried on by the assessee.;