9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (5) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rears of income-tax due from the aforesaid firm. The facts lie within a narrow compass and are stated below. There was a partition suit going on between certain Sens and one of the properties included in the suit was the firm called Messrs. Sen Brothers and Co. A preliminary decree having been passed in that suit by a court at Alipore, there was an appeal to the High Court of Calcutta and in that appeal an order was made for the appointment of receivers in respect of the firm. From the year 1945 to the year 1953 the receivers were two of the Sens themselves, namely, Balai Lal Sen and Bibhuti Bhusan Sen. Assessments of income-tax were made on them as receivers with respect to the income of the firm for the years 1945-46, 1949-50, 1950-51, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was allowed and the rule came up for hearing as a rule against the receiver so substituted. The rule was heard by S. C. Lahiri and S. K. Sen JJ. They discharged the rule on the main ground that there was no provision in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act for substituting in place of the receiver who was assessed for the income obtained by him on behalf of the owners of the firm, another receiver who has not been so assessed, and that in the absence of an assessment on the firm, it would not be right to hold that the assets in the hands of a subsequent receiver (namely, M. K. Sen), who was not an assessee and who was not before the Certificate Officer at all, could be proceeded against with the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Chief Justice, who sitting with Lahiri J. gave the certificate, said : " It is contended that while the first part authorises direct assessment of the owners of the property which is in the hands of a receiver and inferentially authorises recovery from them of the tax imposed by such assessment, the second part is concerned with recovery alone and does not obviously make an assessment of the owners a condition precedent to recovery. In other words, it was contended that although the assessment might have been made on the former receivers, the tax due under those assessments could be recovered from the owners of Sen Brothers and Co. on whose behalf the income assessed had been received and further, since the assets of the firm were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
