1. Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for escaped income in a retroceded area subject to multiple constitutional and legislative transitions. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th April, 1958
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., T.I. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
Income-tax Officer, Bangalore, Appellant
Versus
K. N. Guruswamy, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 165-168 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sr. Advocate (Mr. K. R. Choudhury, Advocate, and Mr. G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co. with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, H.N.SANYAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, H.N.SANYAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
The term "assessment" in saving provisions of tax legislation includes "re-assessment" proceedings for escaped or under-assessed income, as both processes serve the same purpose of determining the tax liability.
Headnote:(A) Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 34 - Finance Act, 1950 - Section 13(1) - Interpretation of "assessment" - Whether the term "assessment" used in saving provisions includes "re-assessment" for the purpose of escaped or under-assessed income - The expression "levy, assessment and collection of income-tax" is wide enough to comprehend re-assessment proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Para 12) - Saving provisions that apply a prior law to proceedings relating to the assessment of income until the stage of assessment and determination of tax payable thereon save the power of re-assessment, as the process of re-assessment serves the same purpose of fixing or determining the amount of tax (Para 13).
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Saving clauses - The object of saving provisions is to make the prior law available in all cases in which income was assessable according to that law; it is illogical to save only a part of the assessment process while repealing the other (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
An assessee was originally assessed for four years under the law in force in a retroceded area. Subsequently, a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was issued for re-assessment of escaped or under-assessed income. The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the tax officer, arguing that the relevant saving provisions in the transitional laws and the Finance Act, 1950, did not extend to re-assessment proceedings for years already assessed. The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the officer lacked jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the term "assessment" in the saving provisions of the Finance Act, 1950, and the state's transitional acts includes "re-assessment". The power to assess escaped income, whether there was no prior assessment or an under-assessment, falls within the connotation of "assessment".
Issues: Whether the tax officer had jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether the term "assessment" in the saving provisions of the Finance Act, 1950, and the state's transitional acts included "re-assessment" proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that "to assess" means to fix or determine the amount of tax, and re-assessment serves the same purpose. Therefore, the terms "assessment" and "re-assessment" are not mutually exclusive. The saving provisions were intended to maintain the prior law's applicability for all income assessable under it before the transition date, and thus Section 34 was saved in its entirety.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was saved by the Finance Act, 1950, and Mysore state laws, and if assessment includes re-assessment. (Para 10 )
3. The term assessment in saving provisions is wide enough to include re-assessment proceedings for escaped or under-assessed income, as both serve to determine the tax amount. (Para 12 , 13 )
4. Saving provisions for the levy, assessment, and collection of tax include the power of re-assessment under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and writ petitions dismissed. (Para 15 )
6. Does the expression levy, assessment and collection of income-tax in Section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950, include re-assessment proceedings?
Yes, the court held that the expression is wide enough to comprehend re-assessment proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (Para 12 )
7. Do saving provisions that apply to income which has not been assessed until a certain date exclude the power to re-open assessments already made?
No. The court held that to assess means to fix or determine the tax amount, and the process of re-assessment serves the same purpose and is included in the connotation of assessment. (Para 13 )
8. Was the power to assess escaped income under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, repealed by the Mysore Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax (Application to the Retroceded Area) (Emergency) Act, 1948?
No, the saving provisions in Section 5(b) of the 1948 Act and Schedule A of the Retroceded Area (Application of Laws) Act, 1948, save Section 34 in its entirety. (Para 13 , 14 )
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. : These four appeals brought by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Bangalore, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Mysore, are from the judgment and order of the said High Court dated March 22, 1955, by which it quashed certain proceedings initiated, and orders of assessment made, against the respondent assessee in the matter of reassessment of income-tax for the years 1945 46, 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49.
2. The relevant facts are these. The respondent K. N. Guruswamy was carrying on business as an Excise Contractor in the Civil and Military Station of Bangalore, hereinafter called the retroceded area, in Mysore. He was assessed to income-tax for each of the four years mentioned above under the law then in force in the retroceded area by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction therein. For 1945-46 the original assessment was made on February 12, 1946, for 1946-47 on January 21, 1949, for 1947-48 on January 22, 1949, and for 1948-49 also sometime in the year 1949. The tax so assessed was duly paid by the assessee. On January 5, 1954 more than four years after , the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Bangalore, served a notice on the assessee under S. 34 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of assessing what was described as escaped of under-assessed income chargeable to income-tax for the said years. The assessee appeared through his auditors and contested the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue the notice or make a re-assessment under S. 34 of the India Income-tax Act, 1922. On February 19, 1954, the Income-tax Officer overruled the assessee s objection, and made a re-assessment order for the year 1945-46. On February 25 1954, the assessee filed four writ petitions in the Mysore High Court in which he challenged the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to take proceedings under S. 34 or to make an order of re-assessment in such proceedings; he asked for appropriate orders or writs quashing the pending proceedings for three years and the order of reassessment for 1945-46. During the pendency of the cases in the High Court, the Income-tax Officer was permitted to make an assessment order for 1946-47, subject to the condition that if the assessee succeeded in establishing that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction, that order would also be quashed. The High Court heard all the four petitions together, and by its judgment and order dated March 22, 1955, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the proceedings in assessment as also the two orders of re-assessment, holding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to imitate the proceedings or to make the orders of re-assessment,. The High Court, however, granted a certificate that the cases were fit for appeal to this Court, and these four appeals have been brought on that certificate. Before us, the appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment.
3. For a clear understanding and appreciation of the issues involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out, in brief outline, the political and constitutional changes which the retroceded area has from time to time undergone; because those changes had important legal consequences. Under the Instrument of Transfer executed sometime in 1881, when there was installation of the Maharaja of Mysore by what has been called "the rendition of the State of Mysore", the Maharaja agreed to grant to the Governor-General in Council such land as might be required for the establishment and maintenance of a British cantonment and to renounce all jurisdiction therein. Pursuant to that agreement, the retroceded area was granted to the Governor-General in Council, and jurisdiction therein was exercised by virtue of powers given by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council, 1902, made under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. The law administered in the area included various enactments made applicable thereto from time to time by the promulgat
