9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act initiated on July 25, 1949. 2. Assessability of the sum of Rs. 9,180 received by the assessee from her husband through an agent under section 4(2) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act initiated on July 25, 1949 The primary contention was whether the proceedings initiated under section 34 on July 25, 1949, were valid, given the amendment by Act XLVIII of 1948, which extended the limitation period from four years to eight years. The assessee argued that the period of limitation was only four years under the old section 34, and this period expired on March 31, 1947. The Tribunal accepted this contention, stating that the old section 34 provided a four-year limitation for cases where there was a failure to submit a return, as opposed to cases of concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which had an eight-year limitation. The Court emphasized that the amended section 34, effective from March 30, 1948, could not revive a right to reassess that had already expired under the old section 34. The Court cited the principle that procedural law, like the law of limitation, applies retrospectively unless it revives a barred right. The Court referenced the case of Income-tax Officer v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., where it was held that the new section 34 could not apply to cases where the limitation period had already expired before the amendment. The Court concluded that the new eight-year limitation period did not apply to the assessee's case since the four-year period had expired before the amended section 34 came into force. Thus, the proceedings initiated on July 25, 1949, were invalid. Issue 2: Assessability of the sum of Rs. 9,180 received by the assessee from her husband through an agent under section 4(2) of the Act Although the Court found it unnecessary to address this issue due to the decision on the first issue, it nonetheless provided an analysis. The Tribunal's view was confirmed that the sum of Rs. 9,180 received by the assessee from her husband through the agent, Yahiya Maricair, constituted "remittances" from the husband within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Court agreed that the intermediary role of the agent did not alter the nature of the remittance, which was assessable as income in the hands of the assessee. Conclusion: The Court answered the first question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, declaring the proceedings initiated under section 34 on July 25, 1949, invalid. Consequently, the second question, while addressed, did not alter the outcome, affirming that the remittances were assessable under section 4(2). The assessee was entitled to costs of Rs. 250 for this reference.
|
