1. This is an application under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Commissioner has refused to state a case on the ground that no question of law arises. We have read his very careful order and we do not think any purpose would be served by recapitulating what he has said. We agree with his conclusions and with his reasons. This is not a case like Raghunath v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1925 A.I.R 1925 Pat. 694; 2 I.T.C 94.. Here the Income-tax Officer has properly proceeded under Section 13.
2. See Income-tax Commissioner v. Achrulal Munnalal 1938 6 I.T.R 255; A.I.R 1938 Nag. 485. and Income-tax Commissioner, Bombay v. Sarangpur Mills 1938 6 I.T.R 36; A.I.R 1938 P.C 1; I.L.R 1938 Bom. 239.. His computation can be scrutinized: Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga 1933 I.L.R 12 Pat. 318; 1 I.T.R 94.. It has been scrutinized, If a money-lender leaves out all his past transactions one should on computing the income take into account those transactions. That is what has been done here. See Commissioner of Income-tax v. Badridas 1939 7 I.T.R 613; 1939 N.L.J 533.. There was no arbitrary action so as to infringe the rule laid down in. In the matter of Radhey Lal Balmukand6. If the material supplied is unreliable some mode of assessment must be followed.
3. It follows that no question of law arising, this application fails and is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 100.
4. Application dismissed.