THOMAS & ROSS V. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION 49/1928

i 4 } je an 4A A226 | | THOMAS & ROSS LYD. ¥ COMMISSIONER OF TAKSTION,

L

SUD GENT 5 HIGGINS J.

Two appeals from d@cisicns of a Board of Review. Both ap,eals = one as to the year ending 30th, June 1920, the other as to the year ending 30th, June 1921 - invo!ve the same point of law, and, by conseyt, have been beard together. The appeals are made under sec. 51(6) of the Income Tax 'jsseasment Act 1922-27,

tn the original notice of a,peal to this Court, the Yoard mt was made the respondent, This wae clearly wrong; but, by consenfort counsel for the aypellant, and of counsel acting for the Commissioner as well as for the Board, the Commissioner has been substituted far @s respondent.

Ly notice of amended assesement dated 3gth July 1926, the Com- emiseioner had aded £560 as for "ad itional tax,omitted income" to the original assessment for the year ended 3%th. June 1920; and by notice of anended asseesment of the same date the Commissioner had added £500 aes for the same reason to the original assessment for the year ended 30th, June 1921, The taxpayer - geompany - lodged an objection against both additions "on the ground that the income alle ~eged was not earned. by the company", On 2th. December 1927 the Commissioner notified the company that he had disallowed the objection; at the request of the company the decision of the Commissioner was

50(4)

referred to a Booed of Neview tor review (sec./gigigy); on Zlst sep-

stember 1928 the Loard dismissed the "appeal" (sic) from the Com-

missioner. The company did not state as one of its grounds of objec-

Deluvered ab. ll {929

THOMAS & ROGS VV COMMISSIONER OF TAXN. HIGGINS J.

-tion that the additions were made more than three yeats from the date when the tax payable on the assessments was originally due and payable ¢see secs, 2 & 37 of the Act 1922-25; secs. 2 & 37 of Act 1922-27); and, in my opinion, the taxpayer was 'precluded from mak- -ing use of this ground of objection before the Board of Review. For sec. 51(2) says expressly that "a taxpayer shall be limited on the review to the grounds stated in his objection".