1. Re-assessment proceedings under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act — cancellation of firm registration under Rule 6B on grounds of being fictitious — challenge via writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1953 Supreme(SC) 98
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th October, 1958
T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND A.K. SARKAR, JJ.
Y. Narayana Chetty and another, Appellants
Versus
The Income-tax Officer, Nellore and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 317 to 320 of 1957.
Advocates Appeared
A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sr. Advocate (Mr. B K. B. Naidu, Advocate, with him), for Appellants M/S. A. N. Kirpal, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
A.N.KIRPAL, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.K.B.Naidu, D.GUTPA, R.H.Dhebar
A.N.KIRPAL, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.K.B.Naidu, D.GUTPA, R.H.Dhebar
A firm is an 'assessee' for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. Additionally, Rule 6B is valid for cancelling the registration of fictitious firms, as it is distinct from the penalty-based cancellation under Section 23(4).
Headnote:(A) Income-tax Act - Sections 3, 2(2), 23(4), 23(5), 26A, 34, 59 - Income-tax Rules - Rule 6B - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Notice under Section 34 - Service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any re-assessment; proceedings in pursuance of an invalid notice are illegal and void. (Para 5)
(B) Assessee - A firm is specifically treated as an assessee under the charging section of the Act and the definition of "person" includes a firm; therefore, a notice issued against a firm is valid even if the tax is ultimately payable by individual partners. The firm does not cease to be an assessee for the purpose of assessment proceedings. (Paras 6-8)
(C) Rule 6B - Rule allowing cancellation of registration if the firm is found to be fictitious is not inconsistent with Section 23(4), as the latter provides for cancellation as a penalty for defaults by a genuine firm, whereas the former addresses the lack of a genuine firm in existence. Rule 6B is a valid exercise of rule-making power to correct erroneous registrations. (Para 10)
(D) Writ Jurisdiction - A contention that a revised assessment is illogical or irregular does not raise a question of jurisdiction and cannot be the basis for a writ of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Three firms were initially assessed as registered entities. Subsequently, the tax authorities issued notices under Section 34, determined the firms were fictitious, cancelled their registrations under Rule 6B, and passed fresh assessment orders treating them as unregistered firms. The partners challenged these actions via writ petitions in the High Court, which were dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the notices issued to the firms were valid as firms are considered assessees under the Act. Rule 6B is valid and distinct from the penalty provisions of Section 23(4). The challenge to the logic of the assessment was a matter of merit and irregularity, not a question of jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether notice under Section 34 must be issued to individual partners rather than the firm; whether Rule 6B is ultra vires the Act; and whether the inconsistency in treating the firm as registered for original and unregistered for fresh assessment constitutes a jurisdictional error.
Ratio Decidendi: A firm is an assessee under the Act, making notices issued to it valid. Rule 6B is a valid exercise of rule-making power to correct erroneous registrations of non-existent firms. Matters of assessment irregularity do not warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as they do not involve a lack of jurisdiction.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of Section 34 notices issued to firms instead of partners — Rule 6B ultra vires — jurisdictional challenge to mixed registration status in assessments. (Para 4 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 12 )
3. Notice under Section 34 is a condition precedent — firms are assessees under the Act — Rule 6B is valid for correcting erroneous registrations of non-existent firms. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
4. A firm is an assessee for notice purposes under Section 34; Rule 6B is valid as it addresses the factual non-existence of a firm. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 14 )
6. Is a notice under Section 34 a mere procedural requirement?
No, the service of the requisite notice is a condition precedent to the validity of any re-assessment. If no notice is issued or the notice is invalid, the proceedings and consequent orders are illegal and void. (Para 5 )
7. Must a notice under Section 34(1)(a) be issued to individual partners of a registered firm?
No. A firm is specifically treated as an assessee under Section 3 and the definition of person in Section 2(2). Since the income being re-assessed is the firm's income, notice issued to the firm is valid. (Para 6 , 8 )
8. Is Rule 6B, allowing cancellation of registration if a firm is found to be fictitious, ultra vires the Income-tax Act?
No. Rule 6B is intended to carry out the purpose of the Act by allowing the officer to review and cancel registrations erroneously granted to non-existent firms, which is distinct from penalties under Section 23(4). (Para 10 )
9. Can the lack of a statutory appeal against an order passed under Rule 6B render the rule ultra vires?
No. The validity of a rule cannot be challenged solely on the ground that no appeal is provided against orders passed under that rule. (Para 11 )
10. Can a challenge to the logic or irregularity of an assessment order be raised via a writ of prohibition?
No. Matters concerning the merits, irregularity, or illogical nature of assessment orders do not raise questions of jurisdiction and therefore cannot be urged in petitions for writs of prohibition under Article 226. (Para 12 )
Judgement
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR J. : These four appeals arise from four petitions filed against the Income-tax Officer, Nellore Circle, Nellore, respondent 1, in respect of the proceedings taken by him against three firms under S. 34, Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). The firm M/s. Bellapu Audeyya and Chilla Pitchayya was formed on 20-4-1936, and it was dissolved on 31-3-l948. It consisted of two partners, Chilla Pitchayya and Bellapu Audeyya. Chilla Pitchayya had started another firm in the name and style of G. Pitchayya & Co. with another partner R. Subba Rao. This firm was formed on 30-7-1941, and it was dissolved on 31-3-1949. Bellapu Audeyya and Chilla Pitchayya had also formed another firm along with five other partners which carried on its business in the name and style of Prabhat Textiles. This firm was formed on 1-12-1941, and it was dissolved by a decree of the civil Court passed on 22-12-1949, the dissolution having taken effect from 1-1-1949. All the three firms were carrying on business in yarn and cloth and all of them were registered under S. 26A of the Act. It appears that for the purpose of assessing the income of these firms for the years 1943-44 and 1944-45, respondent 1 was satisfied on making enquiries that each of the three firms was a separate entity and so separate assessment orders were passed in respect of the income of each one of them for the said two years.
2. Subsequently on 14-8-1951, respondent 1 issued notice against the firm of Prabhat Textiles under S. 34 of the Act. In the proceedings thus commenced, respondent 1 held that the firm of Prabhat Textiles was a fictitious firm and that the real partners were C. Pitchayya and B. Audeyya. As a result of this finding, respondent 1 cancelled the registration of the said firm under R. 6B of the Income-tax Rules and passed fresh orders of assessment against the said firm on the basis that it was an unregistered firm for the assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45.on 14-8-1952, and 25-2 1953, respectively. Similar action was taken by respondent 1 in respect of the two other firms on the same dates.
3. Thereupon Y. Narayayana Chetty, one of the partners of the Prabhat Textiles file a writ petition in the High Court of Madras, No. 613 of 1952, against respondent 1 under Art. 216 of the Constitution and prayed that the High Court should issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the first respondent from continuing the proceedings as per his notice of 14-8-1951, and from enforcing the order of fresh assessment passed in the said proceedings on 14.8-1952, in regard to the assessment year 1943-1944. In respect of the same firm Chilla Pitchayya sought for a similar relief by Writ Petition No. 201 of 1953 in regard to the proceedings and assessment order for the assessment year 1944-45. The same Chilla Pitchayya also filed Writ Petitions Nos. 629 of 1952 and 202 of 1953 in respect of the proceedings taken and fresh assessment orders passed against the two remaining firms for the assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45 respectively. The four petitions were heard together by the High Court and were dismissed on 5-3-1954. The petitioners then applied for and obtained from the High Court a certificate under Art. 133 read with O. 45, Rr. 1, 2, 3 and 8 that the value of the subject-matter in the petitions before the High Court as well as of the appeals before this Court was more than Rs. 20,000. It is with this certificate that the four appeals have come before this Court. Y. Narayana Chetty is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1957 whereas Chilla Pitchayya is the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 318, 319 and 320 of 1957.
4. In the High Court it was urged by the appellants that the proceedings taken under S. 34 against each of the said firms were without jurisdiction and void. It was also contended that the cancellation of the registration of each of the firms was similarly void and without jurisdiction inasmuch
