The assessee ·is a Hindu. Undivided Family. with its HeadD office ·at Indore and _branches at several o<l1er. places· in some of the -former B States including the State of Madhya harat. II derived its income from several sources such as property, businesses, managing· agency. commission,' shares' in' partnership firms, . etc. The assessce's fam.ily .at one time was carrying on business -at Bombay and was assessed in the status of non-resident . Hindu E Undivided Family. Its business in Bombay was, however, closed down sometime in 1945 and no assessment' was made on it for the year 1948-49 and 1949-50. ·Till the,assessment year,1947-48, the "previous year .... adop;ed by the assessee was the appropriate . Diwali year. ·For the· as,essment year 1950-51, the assessee . claimed that in respect of its income by way of commission from the managing and selling agency of the Binod Mills Ltd., Ujjain its "previous year'' was one ending on March 31, 1950 and on that basis it contended that the commission accrued to it during . the calendar year 1948 could not be brought to tax. This con. tention was not accepted by the Income Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and· the Appellate Tribunal. They . took the view that the case of the assessee is covered· by the proG viso to s.-2(11 )(i)(a} of the Income-Tax Act, 1922 (in short "the Act"}. According to their view, the assesscc had ''once been assessed". · Therefore it was not open to it to vary its "previous vear". In. view of that finding, the .assessee was assessed on the basis that the Diwali year be)!inning from 2nd November, 1948 and ending on October 21, 1949 is the relevant account year. H In that account year, the assessee derived. net dividend _income of Rs. 2,62,860 from the Binod Mills Ltd.,-ujjain. Out of this income Rs.· 34,468 were .attributable. to. the profits that accrued or that could be. demed to have been accrued to the Binod Mills
