1966 (2) TMI 85 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee's income for the accounting year ending June 30, 1949, had been properly assessed under the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923.
2. Interpretation of clause 5 of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, and its applicability to the reassessment of the assessee's income under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the assessment of the assessee's income for the year ending June 30, 1949, under the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923. The Income-tax Officer had accepted the return of the assessee, leading to a refund of a specific amount, indicating acceptance of the return. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Esthuri Aswathiah v. Income-tax Officer, Mysore, where a similar situation was interpreted as an acceptance of the return. Thus, the court concluded that the assessee had been properly assessed for the said year.

2. The crux of the judgment revolved around the interpretation of clause 5(1) of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. The clause stated that income not assessed under the State law before a specified date would be assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court emphasized that the clause aimed to prevent double taxation but also noted exceptions. The disagreement arose regarding the meaning of "such income" in the clause. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held differing views on whether it referred to specific sources of income or the entirety of the assessee's income. The court sided with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing that interpreting "such income" as specific sources would lead to double assessments, contrary to tax laws. The court concluded that "such income" referred to the entire income of the assessee already taxed under the Mysore Act. Consequently, the court held that the reassessment under the Indian Income-tax Act was not valid in this case.

3. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the refund granted by the Income-tax Officer constituted an assessment and rejecting the interpretation of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the clause 5(1) of the Order. The court ordered the department to pay the costs of the assessee, including the advocate's fee.