Judgment 1. The assessee Harsahaimal Phulchand is a Hindu undivided family, which deals in yarn and groceries on a large scale. The assessment which is in dispute in the present case is for the chargeable accounting period of Samvat year 1999. For this chargeable accounting period the Excess Profits Tax Officer determined that the profit from business was Rs. 92,761. Under Sec. 6 of the Excess Profits Tax Act the assessee did not select any standard period. Hence under Section 6(4) the Excess Profits Tax Officer applied the minimum standard profit of Rs. 36,000 in the case of the assessee. The chargeable accounting period was 11 and 21/31 months and so the standard profit was computed to be Rs. 35,032 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The net profit chargeable was therefore Rs. 57,729. But under Section 7 the assessee is entitled to relief on account of deficiency of profits occurring in the previous chargeable accounting periods. There were four such chargeable accounting periods, viz., 1st September 1939 to 10th November 1939 (part of Samvat year 1995), 11th November 1939 to 30th October 1940 (Samvat year 1998), 30th October 1940 to 19th October 1941 (Samvat year 1997) and 20th October 1941 to 8th November 1942 (Samvat year 1998). No assessment for excess profits tax was made for these four chargeable accounting periods but the Excess Profits Tax Officer computed the profit from business for these four periods and after deducting the standard profits for the respective periods he arrived at the deficiency for each chargeable accounting period. In this manner he determined that the not deficiency liable to be deducted under Section 7 for the Samvat year 1999 was Rs. 56,326. The net excess profit for Samvat year 1999 was therefore computed to be Rs. 1403, upon which the tax payable was Rs. 935/5/-. In calculating the relief to be given under Section 7, the Excess Profits Tax Officer computed the profit for the first three chargeable accounting periods according to the amount calculated for the corresponding Income-tax assessments. For the fourth accounting period, viz., Samvat year 1998, the Excess Profits Tax Officer did not accept the profit determined for the purpose of Income-tax assessment. He discovered that the amount of Rs. 18,000 together with interest of Rs. For the fourth accounting period, viz., Samvat year 1998, the Excess Profits Tax Officer did not accept the profit determined for the purpose of Income-tax assessment. He discovered that the amount of Rs. 18,000 together with interest of Rs. 430 had been credited in the books of the assessee but there was no satisfactory explanation for this item. Accordingly the Excess Profits Tax Officer treated the amount of Rs. 18,430 as secreted profits and added it to the amount of the Income-tax assessment. An objection was raised by the assessee that the amount of Rs. 18,430 ought not to have been added as secreted profit for the Samvat year 1998. The objection was rejected by the taxing authorities. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following question of law. "Whether regard being had to Rule 1 of the Rules in Schedule I to the Excess Profits Tax Act, the Excess Profits Tax Officer was bound in law to accept the computation of income made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1943/44 as the assessees profits for the chargeable accounting period Samvat year 1998. 2. The main argument on behalf of the assessee is that in making computation of profits for the four chargeable accounting periods it was not open to the Excess Profits Tax Officer to travel beyond the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer for the corresponding periods. It was contended by Mr. R. J. Bahadur that even if the Excess Profits Tax Officer discovered that a particular item of each credit was not explained or even if there was evidence that the amount was secreted profits it was not open to the Excess Profits Tax Officer to differ from the amount of income-tax assessment or to add the amount of secreted profits found for the purpose of assessing excess profits tax. The proposition put forward by the learned counsel is that the amount of assessment made for the purpose of income-tax must be the basis of assessment for the purpose of charging excess profits tax and the law does not permit that there should be a deviation in the quantum of the assessable amount for the purpose either of income-tax or excess profits tax. The argument is based upon Rule 1 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act which states that "the profits of a business during the standard period, or during any chargeable accounting period, shall be separately computed, and shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, be computed on the principles on which the profits of a business are computed for the purposes of income-tax under Sec.10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922." 3. In the present case there is no standard period under Sec. 4, for the assessee did not choose any such period for the calculation of standard profits. The argument of the learned counsel is that Rule 1 prescribes the mode of calculating the profits of a business during any chargeable accounting period. There is, however, nothing in this rule to suggest that the Excess Profits Tax Officer is bound to accept the figure arrived at by the Income-tax authorities for the purpose of assessment of income-tax for the particular chargeable accounting period. The rule merely states that in computing the profits of business the Excess Profits Tax Officer ought to act according to the principles on which the profits are computed for the purpose of income-tax under Sec.10 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Excess Profits tax Act is, of course, in pari materia with the Income-tax Act but the language of Rule 1 does not suggest nor there is any reason in principle why the Excess Profits Tax Officer should await the result of assessment of income-tax before proceeding to make assessment of the business for the purpose of excess profits tax. It may well be that the whole proceeding of assessment of income-tax in the case of any particular assessee may take one or two years and it is unreasonable to suppose that the legislature intended that the Excess Profits Tax Officer should await the final result of the income-tax assessment. Such an interpretation of the Act would not accord with convenience and reason. The actual language of the rule does not also support such an interpretation. The rule only requires that the Excess Profits Tax Officer should compute the profits of the business in accordance with principles of Sec.10 of the Income-tax Act, and not that the quantum of profits so calculated by the Excess Profits Tax Officer should be the same as that for income-tax assessment. The rule only requires that the Excess Profits Tax Officer should compute the profits of the business in accordance with principles of Sec.10 of the Income-tax Act, and not that the quantum of profits so calculated by the Excess Profits Tax Officer should be the same as that for income-tax assessment. In this view of the matter it cannot be held in the present case that the Excess Profits Tax Officer was not legally right in adding the amount of Rs. 18,430 as secreted profits for the fourth chargeable accounting period, that is, Samvat year 1998. In our view, Rule 1 of Schedule 1 of the Excess Profits Tax Act cannot be interpreted to mean that the Excess Profits Tax Officer was bound in law to accept the computation of income made by the income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1943-44 as the assessees profits for the chargeable accounting period, that is, Samvat year 1998. 4. For these reasons the question formulated by the Appellate Tribunal must be answered in favour of the Income-tax Department. The assessee must pay the cost of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250/-.