SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, ACTG. C.J.I., V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
M/s. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 586 to 588 of 1967
D/- 24-9-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Bishambar Lal, H. K. Puri, M. K. Garg and K K. Jain, Advocates, with him), for Appellants. M/s. S. T. Desai and N. D. Karkhanis, Senior Advocates, (M/s. R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, Advocates, with them), for Respondents.
Indian Companies Act, 1913 – Section 210 (3) - Income-tax Act, 1922 - Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 141 – Taxation - Orders of assessment - Company claimed that it was entitled to deduct aggregate of losses which it had suffered since year 1954-55 year after year from profits of year 1963-64. It is true that loss returned by the Company year after year was in excess of amount of loss determined by Income-tax Officer - Whether assessee has claimed them or not – Held, Sub-section (3) of S. 210, however, predicates a valid provisional assessment on basis of which advance-tax may be demanded. But provisional assessment for the year 1964-65 made by Income-tax Officer was invalid, and tax could not be demanded on that invalid assessment. No order for payment of advance-tax for year 1965-66 could then be made, relying upon provisional assessment for year 1964-65 - Income-tax Officer was not justified in holding that claim made by the Company for carrying forward and seeking to debit against Rs. 74 lakhs odd an amount of Rs. 103 lakhs odd was liable to be rejected - Appeals allowed.
Judgement
SHAH, J.:- Jaipur Udyog Ltd.,- a Company-registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, established in 1953 a cement factory at Sawai Madhopur in the State of Rajasthan. From time to time the Company filed its returns under the Income-tax Act, 1922, and after the repeal of that Act under the Act of 1961. The following chart sets out the income or loss returned by the Company for the years 1954-55 to 1964-65 and the income or loss computed for the years by the Income-tax Officer on assessment:
ar of Assessment Income or loss returned by the Company Income or loss computed by the I. T. O.
1954-55 61,24,270 (Loss) 22,53,457 (Loss)
1955-56 4,59,963 (Profit) 19,84,447(Profit)
1956-57 12,02,958 (Profit) 16,88,480 (Profit)
1957-58 23,05,305 (Loss) 12,53,222 (Loss)
1958-59 40,44,779 (Loss) 31,48,707(Loss)
1959-60 28,77,487 (Loss) 20,62,180 (Loss)
1960-61 11,35,365 (Loss) Assessment pending.
1961-62 66,086 (Loss) Assessment pending.
1962-63 44,93,236 (Profit) Assessment pending.
1963-64 74,52,402 (Profit) Assessment pending.
1964-65 59,89,757 (Profit) Assessment pending.
2. Against the orders of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1954-55 to 1959-60 determining its net income or loss as set out in the chart the Company appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the appeals were pending at the date of commencement of the petitions in the High Court of Rajasthan which give rise to the proceedings in this Court. Assessment for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 were however then not completed. In its return of income for the assessment year 1963-64 the Company claimed to set off against the income returned Rs. 1,03,03,935/- being the aggregate amount of loss which it claimed it had suffered in the previous years and was entitled to set off against the income of that year. The Income-tax Officer made a provisional assessment of tax under Section 141of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and against the income returned by the Company he allowed deduction of Rs. 39,89,731/- as loss carried forward from the earlier years, and made a demand for Rs. 8,73,873/- as tax provisionally due and Rs. 87,387/- as penalty for default in compliance with the demand. The Company moved petition No. 51 of 1964 in the High Court of Rajasthan and challenged the order claiming that the Income-tax Officer was bound to accept the return made by the Company and could not assess it to tax on income not admitted.
3. For the assessment year 1964-65 the Company returned a net income of Rs. 59,89,757/- as profit, and claimed to set off against that amount Rs. 36,01,735/- as loss of the previous years and paid Rs. 12,13,596.65 as tax due by it in accordance with Section 140A (1) of the Act. But the Income-tax Officer made a provisional assessment and computed the tax on the total income of Rs. 59,89,757, returned by the Company without allowing any deduction claimed and ordered the Company to pay an additional amount of Rs. 17,32,768.60. Against that order the Company moved petition No. 26 of 1965 for an order quashing the demand of tax and for an injunction restraining the Income-tax Officer from enforcing the demand.
4. For assessment year 1965-66 the income-tax Officer relying upon Section 210 (3) of the Act called upon the Company to pay Rs. 29,45,365.25 as advance-tax. The Company moved petition No. 67 of 1965 in the High Court of Rajasthan for an order quashing the demand.
5. The High Court rejected the three petitions. Against the orders passed by the High Court, these three appeals have been preferred by the Company.
6. Section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, authorises the Income-tax Officer to make a provisional assessment of the income of the assessee on the basis of the return made under Section 139 and the accounts and documents, if any, accompanying the return. The assessment so made is summary and is based only on the return and the accounts and documents filed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer is not
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.