PANNALAL NANDLAL BHANDARI versus THE COMMISSIONEE OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY, BOMBAY.

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 18-10-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
35 
requirements of s. 57 of the Bombay Police Act, must 
be made bona fide, taking into account a conviction 
which is tmfficiently proximate in time. Since no 
absolute rule can be laid down, each case must depend 
on its own facts. 
In the result, we set aside the acquittal, and remit 
the case to the High Court for disposal on the other 
points urged before it and in the light of observations 
ma.de here by us. 
Appeal allowed. 
PANNALAL NANDLAL BHANDARI 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONEE OF INCOME-ll' AX, 
BOMBAY CITY, BOMBAY. 
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Income-tax-General notice-Non-resident liability to submit 
return-Period of Limitation-Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 
1922), s. 22(1) & (2), s. 34(1)(a) & (b). 
The appellant, a non-resident for the purfoses of the Indian 
Income-tax Act, did not submit returns o certain dividend 
income accruing to him within the taxable territory. The 
Income-tax Officer served upon him notices under s. 34 read 
with s. 22(2) of the Act for assessment of tax in respect of those 
years. The notices in question were issued within eight years 
from_ the end of the years of assessment and were within the 
period prescribed by s. 34(1)(a). The appellant contended that 
notices for assessment were governed by cl. (1)(b) of s. 34 and 
not by cl. (1)(a), even though the appellant had not made a 
return of his income for the years in question as a general notice 
under s. 22(1) did not give rise to a liability to submit a return 
and his inaction did not amount to omission or failure to submit 
a return as he was a non-resident, and the assessment proceed-
ings were barred by limitation. 
Held, that the expression "every person" in s. 22(1) of the 
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, includes all persons who are liable 
to pay tax and non-residents are not exempted from liability to 
submit a return pursuant to the general notice thereunder. 
Once a notice is given by publication in the prescribed 
manner under s. 22(1), every person whether resident or non-
resident whose income exceeds the maximum amount exempt 
from tax is obliged to submit a return and if he does not do so, 
The Stale of 
M aharas/itra 
v. 
Vishnu 
Ramchandra 
Hidayatullah ]. 
October I8. 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
'96° 
it will be deemed that there was omission on his part to make a 
P 
1 1 
N 
,
1 1 retuArn within the meaning of s. 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-
~. 
anna a 
".""a tax ct. Section 34(1)(b) applied only to those cases where 
Bhandari 
there was no omission or failure to make a return of the income 
v. 
or to make a full and true disclosure of facts material to the 
The Couunissioner assessment. 
0! Income-I.ax, 
In the instant case the proceedings for assessment were pro-
Bombay City, perly commenced within the period of limitation prescribed by 
Bombay 
s. 34(1)(a). 
Shah ]. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 408 of 1957. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated t.he 28th September, 1955, of the former 
Bombay High Court in Income.tax Reference No. 5 of 
1955. 
Sanat P. Mehta, S. N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. 
A. N. Kripal, R.H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the 
respondent. 
1960. October 18. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH J.-To the appellant who was a non-resident 
for the purposes of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, 
had accrued in the assessment years 1943-44, 1944-
45, 1946-47 and 1947-48 certain dividend income 
within the taxable territory of British India, but the 
appellant did not submit returns of his income for 
those assessment years. In exercise of his powers 
under s. 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the 
Income Tax Officer, Bombay City, served upon the 
appellant notices under s. 34 read with s. 22(2) of the 
Act for. assessment of tax in respect of those years. 
The notice for the year 1943-44 was served on the 
appellant on March 27, 1952, for the year 1944-45 on 
February 16, 1953, for the year 1946-47 on April 4, 
1951 and for the year 1947-48 on April 2, 1952. The 
Incom" Tax Officer completed the assessments in 
respect of the years 1943-44, 1944.45 and 1947-48 on 
May 6, 1953 and for the year 1946-47 on March 19, 
1952. The orders of assessment were confirmed by 
the.Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the In-
come Tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of 
.. 
·-
t • 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COUHT REPORTS 
37 
.-., 
the appel

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