1971 (8) TMI 89 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the notices issued by the Expenditure-tax Officer under section 16(a) of the Act illelegal? Held that - It is no doubt true that the impression created by the notices which were issued and the correspondence which followed between the assessee and the Expenditure-tax Officer was that the notices had been issued under section 16(a) of the Act, but, in the writ petitions and the returns which were filed, both sides were quite clear that the matter was not confined only to clause (a) of section 16(1) and clause (b) figured prominently. We are unable to see that the notices which had been issued were confined only to the terms of section 16(a). It is not disputed on behalf of the assessee that if the matter was covered by section 16(b), they would be perfectly valid. The pleadings in the writ petitions covered both clauses of section 16 and, in any case, the Expenditure-tax Officer had made a positive averment that the information with regard to the expenditure incurred by the assessee s wife became available to him only on 5th May, 1962. Thus, the notices which were issued on that date relating to the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 were within the period of four years which was the limit prescribed with regard to action under clause (b), the limit being more in respect of clause (a). In our judgment, this concludes the matter because it was nowhere controverted in the High Court that the requisite information came into the possession of the Expenditure-tax Officer only on 5th May, 1962. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "dependant" under the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957.
2. Validity of the reopening of assessments under Section 16 of the Act.
3. Legislative competence to enact the Expenditure-tax Act.
4. Alleged discrimination between individual assessees and Hindu undivided families.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Term "Dependant":
The primary issue was the interpretation of the term "dependant" under Section 2(g) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Finance Act, 1959. The assessee contended that his wife, who had her own properties and substantial income, could not be regarded as a dependant under Section 2(g), and therefore, her expenditure should not be included under Section 4(ii) for computing the assessee's liability to tax. The court examined the changes in the language of Section 2(g) before and after the amendment. Before the amendment, "dependant" meant the spouse or child wholly or mainly dependent on the assessee. After the amendment, it included the spouse or minor child and any person wholly or mainly dependent on the assessee. The court disagreed with the views of the Madras and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which had supported the assessee's interpretation. The court held that the amended definition clearly included the spouse or minor child as dependants, irrespective of their financial independence.

2. Validity of the Reopening of Assessments:
The second issue was the validity of the notices issued by the Expenditure-tax Officer for reopening the assessments under Section 16 of the Act. The assessee argued that there was no omission or failure on his part to disclose all material facts, and the reopening was merely due to a change in the officer's opinion. The court noted that the notices and subsequent correspondence indicated the reopening under Section 16(a), but the pleadings and affidavits also covered Section 16(b). The court found that the Expenditure-tax Officer had reason to believe that the expenditure chargeable to tax had escaped assessment based on new information received on May 5, 1962. Therefore, the notices were valid under Section 16(b), as they were issued within the four-year limit.

3. Legislative Competence:
The assessee contended that the Act was void ab initio for want of legislative competence, arguing that there was no entry in List I or List III of the Seventh Schedule relating to tax on expenditure. The court rejected this argument, agreeing with the majority decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that entry 97 in List I, the residuary entry, covered the tax imposed by the Act.

4. Alleged Discrimination:
The assessee argued that there was no reasonable basis for distinguishing between individual assessees and Hindu undivided families, leading to unjustifiable discrimination. The court held that the two classes of assessees were distinct and that the different treatment in tax legislation was justified. The court found no infirmity in the reasoning that the Act's objective was to augment revenue, encourage thrift, and avoid wasteful expenditure, and that different tax treatments did not constitute discrimination under Article 14.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 1794 to 1796 of 1967 and allowed Civil Appeals Nos. 2389 to 2391 of 1968. The expenditure incurred by the assessee's wife was includible in his assessment for computing the expenditure-tax. The reopening of assessments was valid under Section 16(b) of the Act. The Expenditure-tax Act was within legislative competence, and there was no discrimination between individual assessees and Hindu undivided families. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →