9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (3) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 88,799-6-0, which was the tax levied on the firm under the Excess Profits Tax Act for the chargeable accounting periods commencing from 1st April, 1944, and ending with 31st March, 1946. W.P. No. 594 of 1953 was filed by Pandu Rao and W.P. No. 668 of 1953 by Thyagaraja Rao. The other partner of the firm besides these two partners was Gannu Rao. The share of Gannu Rao was 3/5th and Thyagaraja Rao and Pandu Rao were each entitled to 3/5th share. The partnership, which was commenced on 1st April, 1941, carried on its business without any dispute between the partners as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, till about September, 1946. On 26th February, 1947, a suit for dissolution of the partnership, C. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partner and also as Receiver appointed in C.S. No. 89 of 1947. No demand notice was separately served on the other partners, viz., the petitioners before us, the only notice they had was the notice of demand issued by the Revenue Department for collection of the tax and the subsequent attachment of the property of the two partners by the Revenue Departments It is after this that these petitions were filed by the two petitioners, impugning the validity of the assessment on the ground, that they never had any notice either under Section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act or after the assessment was finalised as required by Section 25 of the Income-tax Act, which applies also to the Excess Profits Tax Act. On this ground, it if claimed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounting period, of the profits of the business during the period it is proposed to levy excess profits tax, should be issued to the person, whom the department believes to be engaged in the business to which the Act applies. Under Section 14, the assessment has to be made by the Excess Profits Tax Officer to the best of his judgment in respect of the profits liable to excess profits tax. Under sub-section (2) of Section 14, excess profits tax payable in respect of any chargeable accounting period shall be payable by the person carrying on the business in that period. Person is defined in the Excess Profits Tax Act as including a Hindu undivided family, but, in the absence of any further definition under the Act, one has necessarily to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and severally liable to assessment under Section 14 of the Excess Profits Tax Act for the amount of tax payable and all the provisions of the said Act shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to such assessment. It, therefore, follows that, assuming that by the date of the issue of the notice under Section 13, the firm became dissolved, still, the machinery provided by Sections 13 and 14 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be availed of and the partners even after dissolution continue to be jointly and severally liable to assessment under Section 14 of the Act and for the amount of tax payable after determination. [The result of Section 44 as amended by the Central Board of Revenue is to attract the procedure applicable to an undissolved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, therefore, to a partner is treated as notice to all. There is, however one important circumstance apart from any other question, viz., that Gannu Rao was appointed Receiver in the partnership action and had, therefore, power and authority to act not only on his behalf but also on behalf of all the members the firm, i.e., the petitioners as well. The assessment, therefore, cannot be challenged by the petitioners on ground, that individual notices under Section 13 of the Act were not served upon them after the dissolution of the firm by that date.; From the records we are not able to say whether by the time the notice was issued, the firm was dissolved or not. Therefore it is that we have dealt with the case on either basis. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment and also for payment under Section 29 only upon Gannu Rao. The same procedure was followed for the chargeable accounting period preceding the year now under dispute by Gannu Rao, submitting a return to the excess profits tax authorities, and it was not disputed. We therefore; think that the notices served in such circumstances on Gannu Rao both under Section 13 of the Act and also under Section 29 of the Income-tax Act were valid, and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, so as to empower this Court to interfere by quashing the proceedings by issuing a writ, as for. The requirements, in our opinion of Section 63 of the Income-tax Act were amply satisfied in the present case by the notice of dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
