1978 (2) TMI 71 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to include dividend income in the assessment.
2. Applicability of Section 16(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Legality of the recovery proceedings and demand notices.
4. Delay and laches in approaching the court.
5. Availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to include dividend income in the assessment:
The principal question was whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to include the dividend declared by Renwick & Company Private Ltd. in the income of the partnership firm and its partners. The court found that the dividend was neither paid, distributed, nor credited to the partnership firm or its partners. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to include this dividend income in the assessment years 1958-59 to 1960-61. The court held that the action of the Income-tax Officer was wholly and completely without jurisdiction.

2. Applicability of Section 16(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
Section 16(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, stated that any dividend shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which it is paid, credited, or distributed. The court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in J. Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Ramesh R. Saraiya v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which clarified that a dividend is taxable only when it is paid, credited, or distributed unconditionally. Since the dividend from Renwick & Company Private Ltd. was subject to remittance from Pakistan and was never actually received, it could not be included in the income under Section 16(2).

3. Legality of the recovery proceedings and demand notices:
The court quashed the demand notices issued by the Income-tax Officer and all recovery proceedings related to the dividend income from Renwick & Company Pvt. Ltd. The court also set aside the adjustment of tax sought to be recovered in respect of this dividend income. The court held that the Income-tax Officer's actions were without jurisdiction and, therefore, null and void.

4. Delay and laches in approaching the court:
The respondents argued that the petitioners delayed in approaching the court. However, the court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in R. S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, which stated that delay or laches is not a rule of law but a rule of practice. The court found that the petitioners' rights were still affected, and there were no third-party rights involved. Therefore, the court held that the delay did not bar the petitioners from seeking relief.

5. Availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act:
The respondents contended that the petitioners had alternative remedies available under the Income-tax Act. However, the court cited Bhopal Sugar Industries v. Sales Tax Officer, which held that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitions against orders of taxing authorities when the authority has acted without jurisdiction. Since the Commissioner had rejected the petitioners' plea and no further appeal was available, the High Court had the jurisdiction to grant relief.

Conclusion:
The court allowed both special civil applications, quashing the demand notices and recovery proceedings related to the dividend income from Renwick & Company Pvt. Ltd. The court held that the Income-tax Officer acted without jurisdiction, and the petitioners were entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

← Previous Next →