BALCHAND versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SAGAR

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 19-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

704 
BALCHAND 
V. 
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SAGAR 
All/?USt 19. 1968 
LJ .. c. SHAii AN"D v. RAMASWAMI, JI.] 
lncome../ax Act (II of 1922), s. 34 and Income.tax Act (43 of 1961), 
148-Assessment n1ade by lncon1e-Tax Ofjicer-t·11rrher 
return 
rlie.re-
after by assessee-Whether such return should be disposed 
of 
before 
.taking action under s. 34 of the 1922-Act or s. 
148 of the 
1961-
Act. 
The appellant \\'as assessed to pay tax on his income for the assessment 
years 1945-46 and 1946-47 under s. 23(3) of the Income-tax Act. 1922. 
Thereafter, on June 24, 1959, the Income-Tax Officer issued a notice of 
reassessment under s. 34 requiring the appellant to submit a return of his 
income assessable for the year ending March 31. 1946 ou the ground 
that the income of the appellant had escaped as<essment. The preamble 
to the notice hoy..·cver, referred to the assessment 
years 
1946-47 and 
1945-46. The appellant filed a return for the a'5essment year 
1946-47. 
and \\'hen his attention y.·as drawn to the bcxiy of the notice. he file-.d a 
fresh return for the asses-sment year 1945-46 admitling 
that 
he had 
misunderstood the notice. 
On ?<.-larch 14, 1963 the Income-Tax ()ffi.ccr 
issued another notice under s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling 
upon the appellant to suh1nit a return of his income for the assessment 
year 1946-47, on the ground that his income for that year also 
had 
escaped asscs.~mcnt. The appellant, thereupon filed a writ petition in the 
High Coun for quashing the two notices dated June 24, 1959 and March 
14, 1963 but the petition \V:t.S dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, on the questions, whether; (1) by the notice 
dated June 24, 1959' the appellant was called upon to file a return for the 
assessment year 1946-47 and therefore the reasse~smcnt proceedings for 
the assessment year 1945-46 1,i,·ere incompetent; and (2) since the appel-
A 
8 
c 
D 
L 
lant had suhmitled another retu'rn for the assessment year 1946-47 the 
notice dated 
~1arch 14, 1963, was incompetent, because a notiee under 
F 
.<. J4 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, or s. 148 of the Incometa:x Act 1961. 
could not be isc;ued so Jong as the return was not considered and disposed 
of. 
HELD : ( 1) Though there was some negligence in drawing up the 
preamble to the notice dated June 24. 1959 it did not affect its validity 
for the asses.<ment year 1945-46. The appellant was clearly informed that 
he had to file a return of his income as.~abJe for the year ending March 
11, 1946 that is for the assessment year 1945-46, and the appellant himself 
had admitted his mistake in construing it. [706 B-D] 
(2) The Act does not provide any machinery for dealing with volun-
tary returns filed by an asses.sec af1er assessment of income for the year 
of assessment was c.omplctcd. When the income of the a~C"Sec had been 
assessed ro tax, it \Vas not open to him. to file another voluntary retu'rn 
and avoid the i"ue of a notice either under s. 34 of the 1922 Act or 
s. 148 of the 1961-Act. The cases, 
Com1nissioner of Jticomc-ta.x 
v. 
Ranchhoddas Kar.rondas, 36 J.T.R. 569 (S.C.) and Co1n1nissioner of In-
come-tax v. S. Raman Che!tiar. 55 l.T.R. 630 (S.C.) on which the ap~ 
itant relied arc cases where there was no order of assessment fo'r the rete-
G 
H 
-
c 
-
' 
-
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
BALCHAND V, i,T.O, (Shah, J.) 
705 
vant year and their principle has no application to the present case. 
Unless a notice of reassessment is issued by the Income-Tax Officer, the 
asses.see cannot, after an order of assessment is made, submit a return of 
his income for the year for which he was already assessed and call upon. 
the Income-Tax Officer to assess his income. [707 G; 708-C, F-0] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 640 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 2, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
Petition No. 92 of 1964. 
N. D. Karkhanis, and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
D. Narsaraju and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
The Income-tax Officer, Sagar, asse>sed the appel-
lant to pay under s. 23 ( 3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, tax on 
his income coniputed for the assessment years 1945-46 and 
1946-47. 
On June 24, 1959, the Income-tax Officer issued a 
notice of reassessment under s. 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, 
!.tciting that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment 
and requiring the appellant to submit a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.