9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was justified in taxing the income in the hands of the assessee as an unregistered firm for the assessment years 1965-66, 1967-68, and 1968-69 when its partners were already assessed to income-tax over the same income individually. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment of the Firm as Unregistered: The assessee, a partnership firm, maintained accounts on a mercantile system. For the assessment year 1965-66, the ITO observed that the assessee had not filed any declaration under section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceeded to complete the assessment as an unregistered firm. The same status was applied for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who held that once the ITO had assessed the partners individually, he could not thereafter assess the same income in the hands of the firm, following the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95. The AAC directed that the assessments should be revised accordingly. 2. Revenue's Appeal and Tribunal's Decision: The revenue appealed against the AAC's decision. The Tribunal found that the partners had filed their returns disclosing their share of income from the assessee-firm as a registered firm and that the returns of income for the relevant assessments were filed by the assessee-firm after the completion of the assessments in the case of the partners. The Tribunal held that the AAC was not justified in his decision and restored the assessments of the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm. The Tribunal directed the ITO to give effect to its decision in accordance with section 86(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Legal Provisions and Supreme Court Precedents: The court referred to various provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and the Income Tax Act, 1961, including sections 2(9), 3, 14(2), 23(5), 24, 86, 155, 183, and 184. The court also considered the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225, CIT v. Murlidhar Jawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95, and ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74. These cases established that the ITO had the option to assess the income either in the hands of the firm or its partners, but not both. 4. Analysis of the 1961 Act and Judicial Interpretations: The court examined whether the 1961 Act changed the position established under the 1922 Act, which prohibited double taxation of the same income in the hands of both the firm and its partners. The court noted that the 1961 Act did not substantially change the machinery for taxation, and the partners of an unregistered firm and the firm itself could not be taxed twice. The court emphasized that double taxation is permissible only if the legislature clearly intends it, which was not evident in this case. 5. Tribunal's Error and Final Judgment: The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the ITO was justified in taxing the income in the hands of the assessee as an unregistered firm. The court held that the liability of the firm to be assessed did not exist once the partners had been assessed individually. Consequently, the court answered the referred question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal's direction to the ITO to give effect to section 86(iii) was of no avail if the assessments were bad. Conclusion: The High Court held that the ITO was not justified in taxing the income of the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm for the relevant assessment years when its partners had already been assessed individually. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
