9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49, the Income-tax Officer was justified in initiating action under section 34(1)(a) or he should have taken recourse to section 34(1)(b) of the Act ?" The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of Rai Bahadur Ram Ratan and his son, Prem Nath. It carried on the business of canteen contractors. The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal mentions that the account books maintained by the assessee were never accepted by the Income-tax Officer and the income was assessed by applying a flat rate over the turnover disclosed by the assessee. For the assessment year 1946-47 the assessment was completed on July 12, 1947. Subsequently, on November 11, 1955, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part and dismissed the appeals filed by the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter the instant reference has been made. The assessee contends that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 34(1)(a) inasmuch as the entire material necessary for the assessment of the assessee's income had been fully and truly disclosed at the time when the original assessments were made. It referred to a statement made by Prem Nath during the original assessment proceedings for the assessment years under consideration, the substance of the statement being that overdrafts had been taken by the assessee from the Bharat Bank Ltd., Dehra Dun, against the call deposit account of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All that the assessee disclosed before the Income-tax Officer during the original assessment proceedings was that it had taken overdrafts against the call deposit account standing in the name of Padmawati in the Bharat Bank Ltd. This is clear from the statement of Prem Nath appended to the statement of the case. The assessee did not indicate what were those deposits, nor did it explain their origin. Indeed, there is nothing to indicate that an enquiry was pending at the time as regards the nature and source of the deposits in the account of Padmawati. The inquiry in connection with which the declaration was made by Prem Nath was apparently related to the overdrafts taken by the assessee in respect of its business. The two inquiries were qui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat when section 34(1A) was enacted it excepted from the scope of section 34(1)(a) that class of assessees which fell within the terms of section 34(1A), and, inasmuch as section 34(1A) could be employed for taking proceedings relating to the assessment year 1946-47, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to take proceedings for that year under section 34(1)(a). The doctrine invoked is the doctrine of implied repeal. That doctrine is available when two conditions are present ; one, that the two enactments operate on the same field, and two, that the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier that the two cannot stand together. While considering the maxim leges posteriores pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was intended to catch escaped incomes of the war years which were out of the reach of section 34(1)(a)." There is nothing in the language of section 34(1)(a) to suggest that the income relevant for the assessment year 1946-47 could not be caught within the net of section 34(1)(a), and indeed that is not disputed before us. That the jurisdiction under section 34(1)(a) and that under section 34(1A) did overlap in relation to that assessment year appears also to have been contemplated by the Supreme Court in K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Officer. We are satisfied that section 34(1)(a) and section 34(1A) operate on the same field for the assessment year 1946-47. The question remains whether section 34(1)(a) and section 34(1A) are so repu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violative of article 14 of the Constitution. That submission proceeds on the assumption that section 34(1A) discriminates against the assessee. We are unable to see how that assumption is warranted. We have already referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in K. S. Rashid & Son that it makes no difference whether action is taken under section 34(1)(a) or under section 34(1A). In our judgment, the Income-tax Officer was justified in taking assessment proceedings against the assessee under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49. We answer accordingly the two questions referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to his costs, which we assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
