LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY versus JAMES ANDERSON
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . II! [1964) ·~ ... 1963 argument, in our opinion, is not well-conceived. The whole object of the Act is to save ignorant people Dr. Yash Pal from being duped to purchase medicines just because Sahi their effect is advertised in eloquent terms. That v · is why the Act provides that lists of medicines describ- Delhi ing the qualities and attributes of different medicines Administration should be sent only to registered medical practitioners -- or hospitals. That being so, it would not be a fair Gqjendragadkar argument to urge that even though the appellant J. might have sent the list to a person who was not a registered medical practitioner, the recipient of the list should have been out on his guard and should not have looked into the list. We are, therefore, satisfied that the ·High Court was right in holding that the offence charged against the appellant has been duly proved. In regard to the sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reduced the sentence of Rs. 1,000 fine imposed on the appellant by the learned trial Magistrate to Rs. 500 and that we think is a fair order to make. 1963 December 2 In the result, the appeal fails, and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY v. JAMES ANDERSON (A.K. SARKAR, M. HJDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Income tax Act (XI of 1922), s. 24B-Scope of-Death of Share- holder-Liability of legal representative-Extent of. G, a holder of certain shares of a private limited company made a will disposing of his estate and died on May 13, 1945. The respondent obtained Letters of Administration "durante absentia" to the estate, and in pursuance of an agreement between himself, the company and one M to sell the shares to M, handed over the share certificates to M against payment of the price. M failed to present the share certificates for registration and the name i ,. H . ' • ..... . , • 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS.. 591 .. of G remained on the register of shareholders of the Company. 1963 The Income-tax Officer made an order under s. 23Aofthe Income-tax Act <:is it then stood) that certaL..'.··_ distributed part of the as_ses~- Commissioner of able income of the company sha•r.~' deemed to have been distn- Income-tax buted as dividend amongst the ·,.c-.• , holders as at the dates of the Bo b ' general meetings, vi.:., May :.~. 1947 and December 22, 1947. m ay The Income-tax Officer then .: .. ~ed a notice under s. 34(1) (b) to v. the respondent proposing to re-assess his income and calling upon James Anderson him to file a return for the relevant year. The respondent sub- ' milted a return, but did not include the dividend deemed to have been distributed by the order passed under s. 23A The Income-tax Officer included the dividends in the total income of the respondent and levied tax. The respondent's appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were un- successful. On reference, the High Court held that the assessment made on the respondent Administrator to the estate of G (deceased) was not valid in law. In appeal by special leave: Held (i) The legal representative does ;;ot. acquire in all · cases, the right of a share-holder in respect of shares of which the deceased was registered as holder. But ifthe estate of a share-holder of a company is by. virtue. of the Articles of the Company liable in respect of calls whether made during the life-time of the holder or after his death,· the legal representative is obliged to satisfy the calls in his representative character. (ii) There is no special machinery devised by the Income-tax Act enabling assessment and levy of tax in respect of such deemed income from the estate of the share-holder, in the hands of his legal representative when . the order of the Income-tax Officer pursuant to which the income was to be deemed to be distributed becomes effective was made after the death· of the share-holder. The provision ins. 24B for enforcement of liability against the legal representative of a deceased person to pay tax which would have been payable if such person had not died, has a limited appli- cation. The expression "tax which would have been payable under this Act, if he had not died," ins. 24B is intended to impose liability for tax on income · actually received or deemed fictionally to be received in the year of account in the course of whic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.