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

1972 Supreme(SC) 400

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
The Income Tax Officer, Gorakhpur, Appellant
Versus
Shri Ram Prasad and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 257 and 258 of 1969, D/- 28-8-1972.

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.SEN, N.D.Karkhanis, P.L.Juneja, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR

Headnote:

Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 - Section 13 (1), 15, 2 (17), 4, 13, 14, 7 and 6 - Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 2, 21, 4A, 4B, 10, 13, 24B, 29, 36 to 44C , 45 to 48 49E, 49F, 50, 54, 61 to 63, 65 to 67A, 25-A and 44 - Business - Income-Tax Assessments - Hindu Undivided Family Disrupted - Complete Partition – respondent Ram Prasad was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family which carried on business - Assessments were made on family for income-tax for assessment years for excess profits tax for corresponding chargeable accounting periods - Corresponding chargeable accounting period ending were set aside by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with direction that fresh orders of assessment be made in accordance with directions - Held, Provision applies only to firms and associations of persons - Hindu undivided family is neither a firm nor an association of persons - It is a separate entity by itself - That is made clear by Section 3 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 which classifies assessees under heads "individuals", "Hindu undivided families", "companies"; "local authorities", "firms" and "other associations of persons"...If Hindu undivided family is to be considered as an association of persons, there was no point in making separate provision for assessment of Hindu undivided family - This conclusion is strengthened by Section 25-A of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 which provides for assessment of Hindu undivided family after its partition - For whatever reason it may be, legislature did not incude in Section 21 of Act Section 25-A of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 nor did it make any similar provision in Act - That being so, Court agree with High Court that impugned notices were invalid - Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

HEGDE, J. :- Aggrieved by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 1057 and 1059 of 1957, the Income-tax Officer, Gorakhpur has brought these appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court. For proper appreciation of the questions of law arising for decision in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the material facts.

2. The first respondent Ram Prasad was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family which carried on business in the name and style of "Ram Nath Ram Prasad". Assessments were made on the family for income-tax for the assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48 and for excess profits tax for the corresponding chargeable accounting periods respectively ending on October 28, 1943, October 16, 1944, November 4, 1945 and March 31, 1946. The income-tax assessments for the assessment year 1944-45 and the excess profits tax assessment for the corresponding chargeable accounting period ending on October 28, 1943 were set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with the direction that fresh orders of assessment be made in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal. On September 25, 1951, under a scheme for voluntary disclosure, the first respondent disclosed by means of an application a sum of Rs.2,08,450/- and offered the same for taxation. On October 1, 1951, the Hindu undivided family disrupted and there was a complete partition, which was accepted by the department as of that date. Thereafter fresh assessments to income-tax were made for the assessment year 1944-45 to 1947-48 taking into consideration the disclosures made by the first respondent. There is no dispute about those assessments. Subsequently notices were issued under Section 13 (1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) on February 14, 1957 for all the four chargeable accounting periods ending on October 25, 1943, October 16, 1944, November 4, 1945 and March 31, 1946 in the name of the first respondent. Immediately thereafter the first respondent filed two writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of the notices issued. After the institution of those writ petitions on April 8, 1958, the appellants issued three notices to the respondent under Section 15 of the Act in respect of the chargeable accounting periods ending on October 14, 1944, November 4, 1945 and March 31, 1946. Thereafter the writ petitions filed by the first respondent were amended and the validity of those notices was also challenged. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petitions allowed the same holding that the appellant was not competent to take proceedings under the provisions of the Act in respect of Hindu undivided family which had been divided. Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant took up the matter in appeal to the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. Hence these appeals.

3. Section 2 (17) of the Act defines a person as including a Hindu undivided family. Section 4 is the charging section. It reads:

"4 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall, in respect of any business to which this Act applies, be charged, levied and paid on the amount by which the profits during any chargeable accounting period exceed the standard profits a tax (in this Act referred to as "excess profits tax") which shall, in respect of any chargeable accounting period ending on or before the 31st day of March, 1941, be equal to fifty per cent, of that excess and shall, in respect of any chargeable accounting period beginning after that date, be equal to such percentage of that excess as may be fixed by the annual Finance Act......."

The other relevant provisions are Section 13 and 14 which reads:

"13. (1) The Excess Profits Tax Officer may, for the purpose of this Act require any person whom be believes to be engaged in any business to which this Act applies, or to have been so engaged during any chargeab





















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