9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of business or establishment or connection with India. Up to 1955, the petitioner No. 1 held all the shares of Messrs. Turner Morrison Co. Ltd. and since 1956 the petitioner No. 1 being Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. has been holding 51% shares in the said company. One Mr. B. N. Garg, petitioner No. 2, was appointed a director of the petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of looking after certain pending litigations according to the petitioners. On the 6th December, 1974, the petitioner No. 2 for and on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 was written to by the Income-tax Officer, Company Dist. II, Calcutta, in which it was stated that it appeared that the income had escaped assessment in terms of clause (a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice to the company could not be served in the manner done. Under section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a notice or requisition can be addressed in the case of a company to the principal officer thereof. In this case the notice was to the company. Therefore, it could have been addressed and served on the principal officer of the company. Section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines the " principal officer ". Under clause (a) of section 2(35) he may be a secretary, treasurer or manager or agent of the company, and under clause (b) may be a person connected with the management or administration of the company and upon whom a notice has been served by the Income-tax Officer intimating his intention to treat the person concerned as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material or whimsically. It is not necessary that the person concerned should be actually managing or administering the company. What is required is connection with the management or the administration of the company. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the finding that the petitioner No. 2 was connected with the management or administration of petitioner No. 1 is based on no material or is wholly arbitrary. It is the Income-tax Officer's intention that is important on this aspect of the matter provided his intention was based upon some material. At one point of time, there was some argument that the address of the petitioner No. 2 was given as the address of the petitioner No. 1 and in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, provisions of section 163 will have no application. Indeed, it does not appear that the revenue was treating the petitioner No. 2 as the agent of petitioner No. 1. Reliance in this connection was placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Official Liquidator [1975] 100 ITR 44 ; 45 Comp Cas 442 (AP), where the learned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that the official liquidator acting under section 497(6) of the Companies Act was in no manner connected either with the management or administration of the company in voluntary liquidation and was not the principal officer as defined under section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The position of the liquidator i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
