HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. Sinha
DEBI DUTTA MOODY - Appellant
Versus
T. BELLAN - Respondent
Matter 14 Of 1957
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 11, 1958
INCOME TAX - Reassessment - Amendment of Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Retrospective effect - Notice issued and served after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the old Section 34 - Whether valid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a businessman, was assessed for income tax for the assessment year 1947-48 on 29-1-1951. On 6-2-1951, a notice under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (the Act) was issued demanding payment of tax. The petitioner paid the amount. On 19-3-1956, a notice was issued upon the petitioner under Section 34 of the Act alleging that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner assessable to income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48 had escaped assessment and he proposed to re-assess the said income which had escaped assessment. A further notice under Section 22(4) of the Act was issued on 10-1-1957. On 22-1-1957, a third notice was issued under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment to Section 34 of the Act, which came into force on 1-4-1956, did not have retrospective effect and could not be applied to revive a right to issue a notice under Section 34 which had already been barred under the old Section 34. The court held that the notice issued to the petitioner on 19-3-1956 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the old Section 34 and was therefore invalid.
Issues: Whether the amendment to Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which came into force on 1-4-1956, had retrospective effect.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a right to issue a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which had already been barred under the old Section 34, could not be revived by the amendment to Section 34 which came into force on 1-4-1956. The court held that the amendment did not have retrospective effect and could not be applied to revive a right which had already been barred.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and issued a writ in the nature of mandamus prohibiting the respondents from enforcing or taking any steps under the notice dated 19-3-1956 against the petitioner. The court also issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the same. The court further issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the notice under Sections 22 or 23 of the Income-tax Act based on the said notice.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case arc shortly as follows: The petitioner carries on business in Calcutta. On 29-1-1951, ho was assessed for income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48 on a total income of Rs. 1,15,5327- by the Income-tax Officer-Companies District IV, Calcutta. On the 6th of February 1951, notice under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") was issued demanding payment of Rs. 39,337/4/0 as tax. The petitioner paid that amount. On the 19th of March 1956, a notice was issued upon the petitioner under Section 34 of the said Act. In the said notice it was alleged that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner assessable to income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48 had escaped assessment and he proposed to re-assess the said income which had escaped assessment. The petitioner was called upon to make a return in the prescribed form. Although the notice was issued on 19-3-1956, it is not disputed and therefore it must be deemed to be admitted, that the notice was served upon the petitioner on 2-4-1956. A further notice under Section 22 (4) of the Act was issued on 10-1-1957. On 22-1-1957, third notice was issued under Section 23 (2) of the said Act.
( 2 ) THE short point that calls for decision in this case turns upon an amendment of Section 34 of the said Act. The relevant provision of Section 34 as it stood before the amendment effected by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, which came into operation on 1-4-1956 was as follows:"34 (1 ). If- (a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under Section 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for that year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate or have been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act, or excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed, (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He may in cases falling under Clause (a) at any time within eight years. . . . . . . . of the end of that year, serve on the assessee,. . . . . . . . . . . . . a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may he included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains or re-compute the loss or depreciation allowance; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that subsection".
( 3 ) THIS section was amended by Section 18 of the Finance Act No. XVIII of 1956 dated 27-4-1956. Under Section 38 thereof the amendment was to come into force from 1-4-1956. Section 34 as amended now stands as follows:"34 (1 ). If- (a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under Section 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for that year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate or have been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed,. . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . He may in cases falling under Clause (a) at any time. . . . . . . . . . . serve on the assessee. . . . . . . . . . a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may he included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains or re-compute the loss or depreciation allowance; and the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that
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.