INCOME TAX OFFICER, DISTT. LL(II), KANPUR AND OTHERS versus SHRI MANI RAM ETC.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 20-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

724 
INCOME TAX OFFICER, DISTT. ll(it"), KANPUR AND 
A 
OTHERS 
v. 
SHRI MANI RAM ETC. 
Aul(ust 20. 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI A:-ID A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Indian Income.tax Act 1922, s. 18A(3)-Word 'assesnd' in section 
whether confined to regular assessment or include> 
provisional 
ass..s-
ment-Relevance o/ corresponding provision in Indian Income Tax Act 
1961 for construing earlier Act. 
B 
The respondents filed returns for the year 1953-54 and 
they were 
C 
provisionally assessed on 14-I0-1954. and regular assessment was made 
on 27-2-58. 
For the next four succeeding 
years the respondents filed 
returns, and for all the years the regular assessments under s. 23 of the 
Income Tax Act, 1922 were made after 27-2-58. 
Since no .,.timate r/f 
the tax payable on their income as required by s. 18A was sent noc the 
tax in advance paid, the Income Tax Officer while assessing them under 
s. 23 held that they were liable to pay interest under s. 
18A(8) and in 
addition he applied the provisions of s. 
18A(9)(b) 
and 
imposed 
a 
D 
penalty for each year of assessment by virtue of s. 
28 
read 
with s. 
18A(9) (b). The respondents preferred appeals to the Appellate Assis-
tant Commissioner on the ground that the levy of interest and penalty 
was unauthorised. The appeals v:ere dismissed. and the respondents went 
in revision, "''hich was also dismissed. 
Thereupon, the respondents filed 
writ petitions in the High Court to quash the order and succeeded. The 
High Court held thats. 18(3) of the Act did not apply to the facls of the 
E 
case as there had been a provisional aSSl."Ssment under s. 23B of the Act 
in 1954. Io appeals to this Court, by the Revenue the question for con-
·sideratiOn was whethe'r the expres.<;ion "any person who bas not hitherto 
.been assessed" ins. 18A(3) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 after the 
lncome Tax Amendment Act 67 of 1949 should he interpreted so as to 
·include a person who has only been provisionally assessed under s. 
23B 
.of that Act. 
HELD :-The appeals must be dismissed. Even when the tax is pr<>-
"\'isionally assessed. there necessarily has to be a determination of the 
·total income of the asst.-ssee. 
The only difference is that under section 
23 the total income is detennincd after the Income Tax Officer ~rui satis-
fied himself •fully ahout the correctness of the return filed by taking sreps, 
if necessary. under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Acl 
In the case 
of a provisional ao;sessment under section 23B of the Act, the. powen 
under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act are not to he exercised and 
1he Income Tax Officer ha'i to determine the tax on the basis of the 
return filed by the a-;scssec after taking into consideration the accounto; 
and docun1ents available, if any. and after giving effect to certain allowa.nccs 
and losses. 
Jn other "-'Ord~. what the Income Tax Officer has to do is to 
assess provisionally the total income of the asscsc;cc and t~e!eafter he has to 
determine the tax payahle on the hasis 
of 
that 
prov1s1onatly 
a.sscsscd 
income. [731 A-DJ 
It is important to notiee that in section t8A(t) the expression "asses-
sed" i<; uscJ without any qualification or restriction as to whether the 
: 1sscssment should be a regular assessment or any other type of assessment 
F 
G 
H 
... 
·B 
ID 
F 
H 
I.T.O. v. MANI RAM (Ramaswami, J.) 
725 
under the Act. It is also manifest that in section ! SA sub-section ( 5) 
the two expressions "provisional assessment" and 
"regular 
assessment• 
are expressly mentioned. 
The expression "regular assessment" is also 
repeatedly used in s, !SA, sub. s. 6, 7, S and 9. There is therefore, no 
warrant for restricting the meaning of the word "assessed" in 
section 
l SA ( I) so as to include only a "regular assessment" under section 23 
of the Act. 
There is no reason why Palrliament did not add the word 
"regularly" in the sub-section so as to qualify the word "assessed". Since 
there is no such qualification, the word "assessed" in section 18A(3) 
should be read in its ordinary sense as including every kind of assessment 
including a provisional assessment under section 23B of the Act. [732 A-CJ 
There is nothing in the 1961 Act to suggest that Parliament intended 
to explain the meaning or clear up doubts about the meaning of the word 
"assessecV' in section !SA(3) of the earlier Act. 
Generally speaking 
a subsequent Act of Parliament affords no useful guide to the meaning 
of another Act which came into exis

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