|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 54 Records
-
1971 (5) TMI 59
Issues Involved:
1. Tax liability under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
2. Validity of the return filed in form S.T. VIII.
3. Machinery for the collection of tax under section 5(2)(a)(ii).
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Tax Liability under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948
The petitioner, a registered dealer, purchased materials like yarn, dyes, and chemicals for manufacturing cloth, a tax-free item. The Assessing Authority taxed these materials under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The petitioner argued that since they were manufacturing tax-free goods, the use of these materials should not be taxed. However, the court examined the scheme of the Act and the purpose of section 5(2)(a)(ii). It was found that the petitioner did not disclose at the time of purchase that the goods were for manufacturing tax-free items. The court noted that if the goods were disclosed for manufacturing tax-free items, sales tax would have been levied at the point of sale. The court referred to a similar case from the Patna High Court, which emphasized that the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) is intended to prevent evasion of sales tax. The court concluded that the petitioner is liable to pay tax on the materials used for manufacturing tax-free goods as per the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii).
Issue 2: Validity of the Return Filed in Form S.T. VIII
The petitioner contended that the return was filed in form S.T. VIII, which is for dealers engaged in selling goods, and thus, the Assessing Authority had no jurisdiction to levy purchase tax. The court rejected this argument, stating that the tax levied is not a purchase tax but a sales tax aimed at preventing evasion. The tax should have been recovered at the time of sale but was not due to the misleading declaration by the purchaser. Therefore, the recovery of tax at a later stage is justified, and the second contention was repelled.
Issue 3: Machinery for the Collection of Tax under Section 5(2)(a)(ii)
The petitioner argued that no machinery was provided for the collection of tax under section 5(2)(a)(ii). The court noted that the tax is sales tax and the manner and form for its recovery are provided in the Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Punjab, and Another, which held that the charging section is complete without the prescription of the proper form for the certificate of registration. The court concluded that there is no infirmity in the Act regarding the collection of tax due under section 5(2)(a)(ii), and the third contention was dismissed.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the petition with costs assessed at Rs. 200, upholding the tax liability under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and rejecting the contentions regarding the validity of the return filed in form S.T. VIII and the machinery for tax collection. The decision emphasized the purpose of section 5(2)(a)(ii) in preventing tax evasion and ensuring the recovery of sales tax that should have been levied at the point of sale.
-
1971 (5) TMI 58
Issues Involved:
1. Application for dismissal or stay of the winding-up petition.
2. Bona fide dispute regarding the debt.
3. Admissibility of evidence and limitation period.
4. Allegations of suppression of material facts and fraud.
5. Res judicata and principles analogous thereto.
6. Prima facie case for winding-up.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Application for dismissal or stay of the winding-up petition:
The application was made for either dismissing or permanently staying the winding-up petition (Company Petition No. 225 of 1970) and all related proceedings, including advertisements of the petition. This petition was filed by a secured creditor, Darjeeling Commercial Co. Ltd., against Pandam Tea Co. Ltd., claiming a debt of Rs. 3,99,936.09 inclusive of interest up to December 31, 1969. The creditor had previously lent Rs. 3,00,000 to the company, secured by a second charge on all the company's assets.
2. Bona fide dispute regarding the debt:
The company contended that there was a bona fide dispute regarding the debt mentioned in the winding-up petition. The company denied any loan transaction with the creditor and requested full particulars of the alleged loan, mortgage, and repayment. The creditor asserted that the liability was acknowledged in the company's balance sheets and other documents. The court found that the denial of the debt by the company was neither bona fide nor reasonable, as the debt was consistently shown in the company's balance sheets, which were duly signed by its directors.
3. Admissibility of evidence and limitation period:
The creditor did not produce a statement of account, and the company argued that the claim was barred by the law of limitation. The court noted that the creditor is a mortgagee and that the limitation period for presenting a winding-up petition is three years, not 12 years, as this proceeding is not to enforce the security of the mortgagee. The court referred to the case of Ramdin v. Kalka Prasad, which supported the three-year limitation period for personal remedies against a debtor under a mortgage.
4. Allegations of suppression of material facts and fraud:
The company obtained an interim injunction from the subordinate judge in Darjeeling, restraining the creditor from enforcing the statutory notice of demand. The court found that the allegations of fraud in the company's suit were vague and lacked particulars. The court also noted that the company had not taken any steps to rectify the records or challenge the transactions after the alleged fraudulent entries were made.
5. Res judicata and principles analogous thereto:
The creditor argued that the application for stay was barred by res judicata and principles analogous thereto, as the court had already ordered advertisements of the winding-up petition. The court rejected this argument, noting that the advertisements were stayed for three weeks to allow the company to apply for a stay. The court held that the application for stay was not barred by res judicata.
6. Prima facie case for winding-up:
The court had to determine whether a prima facie case for winding-up was made out by the creditor. The court found that the creditor had made a prima facie case for investigation in winding-up proceedings. The court referred to the case of In re Darjeeling Bank Ltd., which held that even if the statutory notice of demand was invalid, the creditor could still prove the company's inability to pay its debt. The court found that the denial of the debt by the company was not bona fide or reasonable and that the pendency of the suit in Darjeeling did not preclude the passing of a winding-up order.
Conclusion:
The application for stay or dismissal of the winding-up petition was dismissed with costs. The court found that the creditor had made a prima facie case for winding-up and that the denial of the debt by the company was not bona fide or reasonable. The court also held that the application for stay was not barred by res judicata or principles analogous thereto.
-
1971 (5) TMI 49
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate offences in Tamil Nadu.
2. Validity of the report and subsequent actions by the Company Law Board.
3. Procedural requirements under the Companies Act for prosecuting company officers.
4. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Detailed Analysis
Jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
The petitioner contended that the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) lacked the authority to investigate offences in Tamil Nadu without the state government's consent. The court found this contention unfounded, citing the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Section 5 of the Act allows the Central Government to extend DSPE's jurisdiction to states, provided the state consents. Evidence showed that Tamil Nadu had given such consent via a letter dated January 23, 1957. The court upheld the presumption of regularity of official acts, referencing the case of Management of Advance Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Gurudasmal, and concluded that DSPE had the necessary jurisdiction.
Validity of the Report and Subsequent Actions by the Company Law Board
The petitioner sought to quash the report by the Assistant Inspecting Officer and subsequent actions by the Company Law Board, arguing that prosecution should follow an investigation under Section 237 of the Companies Act. The court clarified that Section 209(4) of the Companies Act allows for the inspection of books of account by government officers without prior notice. The court held that an inspection under Section 209(4) is distinct from an investigation under Sections 235 and 237. The latter requires a more comprehensive probe into the company's affairs, whereas the former pertains to routine inspections. The court found no legal bar preventing the Company Law Board from referring the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) based on the inspection report.
Procedural Requirements Under the Companies Act
The petitioner argued that prosecution should be initiated only after an investigation under Section 237 and the subsequent report under Section 241 of the Companies Act. The court disagreed, stating that the Companies Act does not mandate an investigation under Section 237 before prosecution. The court referenced the case of M. Vaidyanathan v. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Erode, which affirmed that Section 630 of the Companies Act does not bar police jurisdiction under Sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court concluded that the Company Law Board's actions were within legal bounds and did not require a prior investigation under Section 237.
Alleged Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
The petitioner claimed that the lack of procedural safeguards, such as supplying a copy of the inspection report to the company, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found this argument unconvincing, noting that Article 14 does not mandate a specific procedure for initiating prosecution. The court referenced the case of Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab, distinguishing it from the present case. The court emphasized that an inspection under Section 209(4) is not the same as an investigation under Sections 235 and 237, and thus, no procedural discrimination existed. The court also noted that no ground for violation of Article 14 was raised in the petition.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the petition, holding that:
1. The Delhi Special Police Establishment had the jurisdiction to investigate the offences in Tamil Nadu.
2. The Company Law Board acted within its legal rights in referring the matter to the CBI based on the inspection report.
3. There was no procedural requirement under the Companies Act mandating an investigation under Section 237 before prosecution.
4. There was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in the actions taken by the Company Law Board.
The petition was dismissed without costs.
-
1971 (5) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
1. Allotment of shares to Mrs. Peskoff.
2. Directors' remuneration.
3. Deletion of Mr. Littman's loan account.
4. Notice of company meetings to administrators.
5. Change of the company's registered office.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allotment of Shares to Mrs. Peskoff:
The petitioners claimed that the allotment of 100 shares to Mrs. Peskoff was not made bona fide in the interests of the company but to give her control and increase her share in the equity. The court found that the company was in dire need of cash, and Mrs. Peskoff was taking a considerable risk by putting additional money into the company. The allotment of shares and the issue of debentures were part of a "package deal" to inject cash into the company. The court concluded that the allotment was a legitimate act done in good faith for the benefit of the company and was not oppressive.
2. Directors' Remuneration:
The petitioners argued that the directors' remuneration, particularly after the agreement with Nevilles, was grossly excessive. The court noted that the remuneration up to March 31, 1961, was not excessive and that the resolution of October 17, 1955, was not oppressive. Although Mrs. Peskoff did take excessive remuneration in later years, the court found no link between the issue of shares and the voting or taking of remuneration. The court held that the remuneration taken by Mrs. Peskoff did not amount to oppression as it was not procured or retained through the exercise of majority voting power.
3. Deletion of Mr. Littman's Loan Account:
The petitioners complained about the deletion of the lb2,936 debit on Mr. Littman's loan account from the company's accounts. The court found that this action could not be regarded as oppressive and that the debt, if valid, was statute-barred long before the petition was presented. The court disagreed with the lower court's decision to take this sum into account in granting relief under section 210.
4. Notice of Company Meetings to Administrators:
The petitioners argued that no notices of company meetings were given to the personal representatives of Mr. Littman. The court acknowledged that the directors were mistaken in omitting to give notice but found that this could not be regarded as an act of oppression. The court held that even if it were considered oppressive, it would not justify an order for one side to buy the shares of the other.
5. Change of the Company's Registered Office:
The petitioners complained about the irregular removal of the registered office from 78 New Bond Street to the Jermyn Street premises. The court noted that no reliance was placed on this issue in the appeal, and it was not considered further.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to make out a case of oppression. The court emphasized that the acts complained of did not constitute oppression within the meaning of section 210 of the Companies Act, 1948.
-
1971 (5) TMI 30
Failure to file estimates of advance tax for an assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be rightly held that no penalty can be levied on the assessee under section 273(b) of the Act of 1961 for the assessment year under appeal for a default under section 18A(3) of the Act of 1922 ? " - Having regard to the foregoing discussion our answer to the question referred to us is that penalty under section 18A(9) can be imposed under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year under appeal before the Tribunal.
-
1971 (5) TMI 29
Proceedings initiated under section 34(1)(b) - legality and validity - officer who made the original assessment had full knowledge of the relevant information or facts. The interpretation by the subsequent officer of the existing material amounts only to a change of opinion - it is wellsettled that a mere change of opinion does not constitute information within the meaning of section 34(1)(b). The Income-tax Officer who purported to reopen the assessments did not, therefore, have any information within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) in his, possession, and he, therefore, could not exercise any power or jurisdiction under section 34(1)(b) to reopen the assessments already made. The, reopening of the assessments of the assessee already concluded was, therefore, illegal and not validly done
-
1971 (5) TMI 28
Whether the interest earned by the wife and minor son of the assessee on the credits standing in their names is income which accrued to them directly or indirectly because of their membership or admission to the benefits of the firm, Messrs. Laljimal Tika Ram, in which the assessee is a partner – Whether the interest income earned by Kasturi Devi and Ram Gopal were liable to be included in the assessment of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(i) and 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1971 (5) TMI 27
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO who had made the original assessment had not committed any glaring and obvious mistake of law while granting relief under section 49D (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that accordingly the provisions of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the case - If the issue is capable of two views, then it is not a mistake that could be rectified. In the present case, there was scope for argument. Therefore, it cannot be rectified under section 154.- further, rectification order is an appealable one - when issue is not raised before the Tribunal, High Court cannot consider the same – issue decided in favour of assessee
-
1971 (5) TMI 26
Reopening of assessment – original assessment was completed accepting the assessee's explanation - ITO has no power to compel the assessee to furnish the particulars or to ask him to show cause why the assessment should not be reopened - Income-tax Officer has a right to issue the notice. But, the Income-tax Officer, however, has no right to compel the assessee to act in compliance with the notice
-
1971 (5) TMI 25
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surplus amounting to Rs. 1,01,854 arising from the sale of the fireclay rights was taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 – purchase and sale of fireclay rights were purchase and sale of the assessee and were incidental to the purchase and sale of coal mines. Both the coal mine and the fireclay rights were purchased for the purpose of resale – therefore, Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in the affirmative and in favour of the department
-
1971 (5) TMI 24
Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - whether the provisions of section 12(e) and (g) read with section 3(2) of the Act are applicable in the matter of assessment to super-tax under Chapter VII-A of the Act – held that, provisions relating to exemption and grant of rebate on insurance premia and donations under s. 3(2) and s. 12 apply to the assessment of super-tax
-
1971 (5) TMI 23
Carried forward and set-off of loss in the sales of an asset - As the loss of the assessee relating to the year 1951-52 cannot be called as loss under the head "capital gains" even as per the law as stood in 1958-59, it cannot be carried forward and set off against capital gains of the year 1956 onwards - Whether evidence of market value is necessary to determine the market value of property acquired for the purpose of capital gains – held that in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain of the assessee could not be calculated on the basis of the third proviso to section 12B(2)
-
1971 (5) TMI 22
Ordinarily, an assessee maintaining his accounts on the mercantile system is entitled to deduction only if the appropriate debit entry has been made in the account. But that, it seems to us, is not an absolute rule. The liability arose by virtue of section 144 of the Code, and we do not see why it should be taken as not having accrued merely because of the omission of the assessee to enter the liability in its account books. The liability arose because of the operation of law. It could not be denied merely because it was not entered in the accounts. Its existence did not depend upon entries being made in the assessee's books. The omission of the assessee to make the entries in its books merely rendered the accounts inaccurate. We are in agreement with the Appellate Tribunal that the absence of entries in the account books cannot deprive the assessee of his right to the deduction.
-
1971 (5) TMI 21
The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of plying motor vehicles on certain routes. In the assessment proceedings for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 it claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,681 an Rs. 29,712, respectively, on account of fees paid to its lawyers for representing its case before the State Transport Authority and also in certain writ petitions before the High Court. The assessee contended in that litigation that permits should not be granted to other private carriers on the routes assigned to the assessee. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed Rs. 5,000 as a deduction for the assessment year 1958-59 and Rs. 25,000 for the assessment year 1959-60. - Held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee over the fees paid to its lawyers for representing its case before the State Transport Authority and in the writ petitions before the High Court must be held to be admissible revenue expenditure.
-
1971 (5) TMI 20
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the present reference.
2. Whether the sum deducted from the dividend constitutes payment of income-tax by the assessee under the law of U.K.
3. Whether the assessee can claim relief under section 49D without actual assessment in U.K.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the Present Reference:
The assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the competence of the reference, arguing that the Tribunal's finding that the assessee paid income-tax by deduction in accordance with U.K. law is a factual finding binding on the court. The court disagreed, stating that the finding involves interpretation of the English statute and judicial decisions, making it a mixed question of fact and law. The court also rejected the argument that the Tribunal's interpretation of "assessed" in Explanation (iii) does not form part of the reference, emphasizing that the question referred is broad enough to cover this aspect.
2. Payment of Income-Tax by Deduction:
The court examined whether the sum deducted from the dividend income constitutes payment of income-tax by the assessee in U.K. under the law of U.K. The court reviewed relevant provisions of the English Income Tax Act, 1952, and various judicial decisions. It concluded that, despite differences in statutory provisions between India and the U.K., the sums deducted from dividend income under section 184 of the English Act are treated and recognized as payment of income-tax by deduction under U.K. law. The court noted that the authority to deduct tax from dividends is conferred by the taxing statute, and such deductions are considered payment of income-tax by the shareholder, even though the deducted amounts are retained by the company and not paid to the revenue authorities.
3. Relief Under Section 49D Without Actual Assessment:
The court addressed whether the assessee can claim relief under section 49D without actual assessment in U.K. The court held that entitlement to relief requires satisfying the conditions in section 49D(1), including payment of income-tax by deduction or otherwise under the law of the foreign country. The court found that the assessee met these conditions. The court also considered the requirement of Explanation (iii) for determining the rate of tax in the foreign country. In this case, the assessee, being a company, was not liable for sur-tax and had paid tax at the standard rate, making it straightforward to ascertain the rate of tax in accordance with the Explanation. The court concluded that all requirements for granting relief were fulfilled, rendering further interpretation of the term "assessed" unnecessary.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, holding that the sum deducted from the dividend income constitutes payment of income-tax by deduction under U.K. law, and the assessee is entitled to relief under section 49D of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent-assessee.
-
1971 (5) TMI 19
Partial partition of HUF after the relevant previous year - Whether the assessment was validly made on the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided - Whether there was material for coming to the conclusion that Rs. 2,33,414 out of the capital of Rs. 3,33,414 credited in the books of account of the assessee represented income from undisclosed sources
-
1971 (5) TMI 18
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notices under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Distinction between Section 147(a) and Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Validity of reassessment proceedings based on subsequent information.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Issue Notices under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The core issue revolves around whether the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for four assessment periods. The judgment establishes that the ITO must have "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year. The court scrutinized whether these conditions were met in the present case.
2. Distinction between Section 147(a) and Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee contended that the impugned notice falls under Section 147(b) and is therefore barred under Section 149(b) as it was issued after four years from the end of the assessment year. The court examined the reasons provided by the ITO, which indicated that the investment in house properties was undervalued based on subsequent information and local enquiry. The court concluded that the case falls under Section 147(b) because the ITO's belief was based on subsequent information rather than non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee, thus making the notice time-barred under Section 149(1)(b).
3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The court emphasized that under Section 148(2), the ITO is required to record his reasons before issuing any notice. The reasons recorded must establish that the case falls under Section 147(a). In this case, the reasons provided by the ITO were scrutinized, and it was found that they were based on subsequent information rather than any omission or failure by the assessee to disclose material facts during the original assessment proceedings.
4. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Based on Subsequent Information:
The court analyzed whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the ITO were valid. It was found that the ITO's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on subsequent information and local enquiry, which led to an inferential non-disclosure in the assessee's accounts. The court held that this does not satisfy the conditions under Section 147(a) but rather falls under Section 147(b). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid as they were initiated beyond the permissible time limit under Section 149(1)(b).
Conclusion:
The court allowed all four applications and quashed the impugned notices, concluding that the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to issue the notices under Section 147(a) as the conditions precedent were not met. The reassessment proceedings were based on subsequent information, making them fall under Section 147(b), and thus barred by the time limit specified in Section 149(1)(b). No order as to costs was made.
-
1971 (5) TMI 17
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the property at 4/23-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
2. Applicability of section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Interpretation of the term "owner" under section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
4. Impact of the Partnership Act, 1932, on property ownership by a firm.
5. Relevance of the property not being listed in the firm's balance sheet.
6. Applicability of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership of the Property at 4/23-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi:
The primary issue was whether the property at 4/23-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, was owned by the assessee-firm or by the individual partners. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the property was owned by the firm and included its income in the firm's assessment. The Tribunal upheld this view, leading to the reference to the High Court.
2. Applicability of Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922:
The court examined whether the income from the property should be assessed in the hands of the firm or the individual partners under section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal had previously ruled that the property income should be included in the firm's income.
3. Interpretation of the Term "Owner" under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922:
The court considered the definition of "owner" for tax purposes. The revenue argued that the term "owner" in section 9 should be understood in the context of income-tax assessment, meaning the firm could be considered the owner even if the property was registered in the firm's name.
4. Impact of the Partnership Act, 1932, on Property Ownership by a Firm:
The court analyzed provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932, particularly sections 4, 10, and 14, to determine whether a firm could own property. It was argued that a firm is an association of individuals and cannot own property independently. However, the court found that under section 14, a firm could own property if it was brought into the firm's stock or acquired for the firm's business.
5. Relevance of the Property Not Being Listed in the Firm's Balance Sheet:
The assessee argued that the property was not listed in the firm's balance sheet and was constructed with funds from one partner, Bhai Sunder Dass. The court noted that the absence of the property in the balance sheet did not preclude it from being a firm asset, especially since the lease deed was in the firm's name and the firm had claimed income exemption for the property in earlier years.
6. Applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922:
The court examined whether sub-section (3) of section 9, which deals with property owned by two or more persons with definite and ascertainable shares, applied. The revenue contended that this sub-section did not apply as the property was owned by the firm, a single entity for tax purposes. The court agreed, stating that the firm, as a unit of assessment, could own property and be taxed accordingly.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the property at 4/23-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, was owned by the assessee-firm and not by the individual partners. The firm's ownership was supported by the lease deed being in the firm's name and the firm's previous claims for income exemption on the property. The court held that the income from the property should be assessed in the hands of the firm under section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and answered the reference in the affirmative. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
-
1971 (5) TMI 16
Issues:
1. Whether the act of declaring separate property as joint family property amounts to a gift liable for gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 for the assessment year 1964-65?
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, involving a Hindu undivided family member who declared his self-acquired properties as joint family properties. The Gift-tax Officer assessed tax based on the unilateral declaration, considering it a transfer attracting the Act's provisions, citing a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled no tax was leviable, referencing a local court decision declaring the Gift-tax Act unconstitutional for taxing gifts of immovable properties. The Tribunal, on appeal, referred the question of tax liability, assuming the declaration as a gift. The High Court recast the question to focus on whether there was a gift of movable and immovable properties liable to gift-tax for the assessment year 1964-65.
The High Court considered relevant precedents, including the Supreme Court's reversal of a decision in Nazareth's case and the affirmation of the local court's decision in Nerlekar's case. The Supreme Court's decision in Goli Eswariah's case was pivotal, overturning the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision relied upon by the Gift-tax Officer, and affirming the local court's stance. The High Court, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation, held that the act of a coparcener declaring self-acquired property as joint family property does not constitute a transfer under the Act, thus not attracting gift-tax liability. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that there was no gift of movable and immovable properties liable to gift-tax for the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee was awarded costs for the reference, including advocate's fee.
-
1971 (5) TMI 15
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of Section 149 and Section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Liability of the successor for the income of the dissolved firm.
4. Interpretation of Section 26 and Section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
5. Implications of the High Court's findings in previous references on the current case.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of Notices Issued under Section 148
The petitioner challenged the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer on December 3, 1968, under Section 148 for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, claiming they were barred by time as per Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 149 prescribes a maximum period of 16 years for cases falling under Section 147(a) and 4 years for cases under Section 147(b). The notices were issued well beyond these periods, making them prima facie barred by time.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 149 and Section 150
The revenue argued that under Section 150, a notice under Section 148 could be issued at any time if it was for making an assessment or reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction by any authority in any proceeding under the Act. The High Court's order dated May 20, 1964, in I.T.R. Nos. 738 and 739 of 1962, stated that the petitioner succeeded to the business of the old Sharma & Co. on January 1, 1948. The revenue contended that this finding implied the petitioner was liable to be assessed as the successor, thus justifying the issuance of the notices under Section 150.
Issue 3: Liability of the Successor for the Income of the Dissolved Firm
The court examined whether the petitioner could be taxed for the income earned by the old Sharma & Co. before its dissolution on December 31, 1947. It was noted that Section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended in 1958, makes the partners of a dissolved firm liable for tax, not the successor. Section 26 of the Act also requires separate assessments for the person succeeded and the successor, with no liability on the successor for the income earned by the predecessor before the succession.
Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 26 and Section 44
The court held that Section 26 and Section 44 do not authorize the Income-tax Officer to take proceedings against the successor for the income earned by the dissolved firm. The liability for such income remains with the partners of the dissolved firm. There was no allegation that the partners of the old Sharma & Co. were unavailable for assessment or tax recovery, thus negating any liability on the petitioner for the firm's income up to its dissolution.
Issue 5: Implications of the High Court's Findings in Previous References
The High Court's previous finding that the petitioner succeeded to the business did not imply that he was liable for the income earned by the old Sharma & Co. up to its dissolution. The court noted that neither Section 26 nor Section 44 authorized such proceedings against the petitioner. Furthermore, Explanation III to Section 153, which deals with the reassessment of income excluded from one person and held to be the income of another, did not apply as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard in the previous references.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notices issued to the petitioner were beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 149 and were not justified under Section 150. The notices were not issued in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction by the High Court. Therefore, the notices dated December 3, 1968, were quashed, and the writ petitions were allowed with costs. The court did not find it necessary to address the validity of Section 150 in this context.
Judgment:
Petitions allowed.
|
9911796707
