9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the requirement for an estimate of tax payable by a firm. 2. Determination of liability to furnish the estimate and pay tax under Section 18A(3) before the 15th of March, 1947. 3. Assessment of penalty for non-compliance with Section 18A(3) by an unregistered firm that later became a registered partnership. The judgment in this case addressed the issue of whether an assessee firm was obligated to provide an estimate of tax payable and make the payment as required by Section 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 before the 15th of March, 1947. The partnership in question was formed in December 1945, but the partnership deed was executed in June 1947, and the return of assessment was filed in July 1947. The registration of the firm was granted in November 1947, with the assessment being completed on the basis of it being a registered firm. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty on the firm for not complying with Section 18A(3). However, the court found that on the crucial date of 15th March 1947, the partnership was unregistered, and the liability to furnish the estimate did not fall on the unregistered firm or its individual partners. The court emphasized that the liability to pay the assessed income tax only arose upon registration, and as of 15th March 1947, this liability could not have been enforced. Therefore, there was no default on the part of the registered firm or its individual partners, and consequently, no basis for imposing a penalty. The court highlighted that Section 18A(3) required the estimate to be furnished by the 15th of March, 1947, which was before the partnership was registered. The court clarified that under Section 23(5), it is the partners of a registered firm who are liable to pay income tax, not the firm itself. The court emphasized that the liability to pay the assessed income tax only arose upon registration, and as of 15th March 1947, this liability could not have been enforced. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no default on the part of the unregistered firm or its individual partners, and hence, no penalty could be imposed. In interpreting the penal clause under Section 28(1)(a) of the Act, the court stressed the need for a strict construction of penal provisions. The court reasoned that the liability to pay the assessed income tax only arose upon registration, and as of 15th March 1947, this liability could not have been enforced against the unregistered firm or its partners. Therefore, the court held that there was no basis for imposing a penalty on the firm. As a result, the court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and directed the Income-tax Department to pay the costs of the assessee.
|
