SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 273

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, ACTG. C.J.I., V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
The State of Assam and another (In all the Appeals), Appellants
Versus
D. C. Choudhuri and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1537 to 1545 of 1968, D/- 7-8-1969.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Naunit Lal and S. N. Choudhury, Advocates, for Appellants, (In all the Appeals); M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate with him), for Respondents, (In all the Appeals.)

Advocates:
M.C.CHAGLA, NAUNIT LAL, SUKUMAR GHOSH

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 23, 20 (4), 30, 19 (1), 22 and 30 - Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 - East African Income Tax (Management) Act, 1952 - Partnership firm - Income-tax - Assessment orders - Appeals by certificate - Petitioners in four of writ petitions owned the Martycherra Tea Estate in district of Cachar which they had purchased - They sold this Estate - They carried on business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of black tea at said Estate under a partnership of which they were sole partners - Partnership firm was served with a notice under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called Income-tax Act and was assessed to income-tax for assessment year - Case of assessees as laid in writ petition was that a letter was received by one of them from Agricultural Income-tax Officer directing both assessees to furnish returns of their agricultural income for assessment years – Held, Agricultural Income-tax Officer can then make an order that the assessee shall be assessed at place specified in application or he has to refer matter to Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax whose decision shall be final - It shows, that proceedings for assessment under Act can be initiated only by service of a notice under Section 19 (2) or by having resort to provisions of Section 30 of Act - Appellant has sought to make a distinction between the decision given under provisions of Income-tax Act by pointing out that under Section 20 (4) of Act best judgment assessment can be made on failure to make a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 19 whereas under S. 23 (4) of Income-tax Act such an assessment can be made only where any person fails to make return required by any notice given under sub-section (2) of Section 22 which is equivalent to Section 19 (2) of Act - Distinction is hardly material when principles which have been laid down by this Court are kept in view - Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

GROVER, J.- These are nine connected appeals by certificate from a judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland whereby nine petitions filed by the respondents under Art. 226 of the Constitution were allowed and the assessment orders made under the provisions of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, hereinafter called Act , were quashed.

2. The facts may be first stated. D. C. Choudhuri and S. C. Dutt petitioners in four of the writ petitions owned the Martycherra Tea Estate in the district of Cachar which they had purchased on January 1, 1948. They sold this Estate on July 9, 1953. From January 1, 1948 to July 9, 1953 they carried on the business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of black tea at the said Estate under a partnership of which they were the sole partners. The partnership firm was served with a notice under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called the Income-tax Act and was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52. Appeals were filed against the assessment order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in which substantial reliefs were given to the assessee. After the sale of the Tea Estate these assessees ceased to have any agricultural income. The case of the assessees as laid in the writ petition was that on January 25, 1961 a letter was received by one of them from the Agricultural Income-tax Officer directing both the assessees to furnish returns of their agricultural income for the assessment years 1949-50 to 1953-54. Thereafter they received a notice of demand under Sec. 23 of the Act for payment of a certain amount as agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1950-51. The assessment order was stated to have been made under Sec. 20 (4) of the Act. Similar orders were made and demands created with regard to the subsequent years, namely, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. All these assessment orders were challenged by means of four petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Apart from other points which were raised the main objection taken was that no notice under Sec. 30 of the Act had been served at any time in respect of the assessment covered by the impugned orders. Such a notice could be served only within three years of the end of the financial year. In the absence of service of the aforesaid notice within the prescribed period the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make any assessment nor could such as assessment be made after the expiry of a period of three years from the end of each financial year.

3. The other set of petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed by the company - The Eastern Tea Estate Private Ltd. This company owned two tea estates, the Chandana Tea Estate and the Martycherra Tea Estate. The Chandana Tea Estate was purchased from the Indian Tea and Mill Industries Limited in 1950 and the Martycherra Tea Estate was purchased from M/s. D. C. Choudhuri and S. C. Dutt on July 9, 1953. The case of the company was that no notice had been received under Section 19 (2) of the Act for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1955-56 and therefore no returns were filed. On October 9, 1959 the company received a letter from the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Shillong asking it to submit returns in respect of Martycherra Tea Estate for the assessment year 1950-51 onwards. The company addressed a communication to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on November 18, 1959 saying, inter alia, that no notice had been served on it under the Act previously and as it also owned the Chandana Tea Estate it proposed to submit returns for the years in respect of which it was liable under the Act. On October 19, 1959, the company received a notice under Sec. 19 (2) of the Act directing it to submit the return in respect of the previous year for Martycherra Tea Estate. In response to the notice the company submitted the return for the year ending December 31, 1958 showing the agricultural income fr
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top