The assessee is not liable to be taxed on both the estimated profit and the cash credits, as the cash credits include the estimated profit.

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case the assessee is a firm consisting of four partners, Bameshwar Prasad, Ramlakhan Prasad, Ramekbal Prasad and Gopijee Maheshwar and was registered under Sec.26A, Income-tax Act. The assessee is a firm carrying on considerable business in sugar, salt, kirana and other articles in the town of Kishunganj in the district of Purnea. The assessment in dispute relates to the year 1946-47 for the purpose of income-tax. The assessment for excess profits tax refers to the chargeable accounting period 20-4-1945 to 31-3-1946. In the course of assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer examined the account books & found that the trading account maintained by the assessee did not show the assessees true profits. He, therefore, estimated that a sum of Rs. 20,072 should be added as profits to the amount shown in the books of account. There was another matter in respect of which the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. The account books showed that there were cash credits in the personal accounts of the four partners to the extent of Rs. 85,370. The Income-tax Officer added the two amounts of Rs. 20,072 and Rs. 85,370 and determined the assessees income from business to be Rs. 1,44,898. Appeals were preferred by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who upheld the addition of cash credits of Rs. 85,370 but reduced the other item of Rs. 20,072 estimated by the Income-tax Officer from the figure of Rs. 20,072 to that of Rs. 15,644. Appeals were then filed by the assessee to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but the appeals were dismissed.

2. At the instance of the assessee the High Court required the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case on the following question, of law.

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 15,774 as extra estimated profit in various goods accounts & again the addition of Rs. 85,000 as income from undisclosed sources amounts to double taxation to the extent of Rs. 15,774?"

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I think that the question framed should be altered in the following manner:

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to be taxed on the sum of Rs. 15,774 as extra estimated profit and also on the sum of Rs. 85,000 shown as cash credit but which, has been found by the taxing authorities to be income from undisclosed sources?"

4. The learned Standing counsel stated that the question may not be altered at the hearing of the reference, if any fresh facts were necessary to be stated. But there is no point in this objection. No additional statement of facts is necessary in the present case. It is settled by a long line of authorities that the High Court may without raising a new and different question resettle and reframe the question formulated by the Tribunal before answering it so as to bring out the real issue between the parties (see, for example, -- Madanlal Dharni-dharka V/s. Commr. of Income-tax, AIR 1949 Bom 24 (A); -- Jethabhai V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1950 Bom 29 (B): -- Caltex India V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1952 Bom 151 (C).

5. On behalf of the assessee, the contention of Mr. Dutt is that there was no finding that the assessee had been carrying on any other business except the business of dealing in sugar, salt and kirana for which the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment. It was pointed out that the assessee had claimed before the taxing authorities that the amount of cash credits shown in the books of account was not income receipt but it was capital receipt on account of the sale proceeds of gold belonging to the partners of the business. The explanation given by the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and by the appellate authorities who held that there was no material to show that the cash credits represented the sale proceeds of gold belonging to the partners and since the assessee has not