SAHU RAJESHWAR NATH versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 999 · Decided: 04-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SAHU RAJESHWAR NATH 
v. 
INCOME-TAX OFFICER 
September 4, 1968 
• 
(J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Indian Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), ss. 29 and 4~Ta.t due from 
an unregistered firm-Recovery proceedings against a partner-Whether 
a separate notice to the partner necessary, 
The appellant was a partner in an unregistered firm under the Income-
tax Act, 1922. The firm was assessed to mcome·tax. No notice of the 
assessment proceedings was given to the appellant, nor was any notice of 
demaod issued under s. 29 of the Income-ta.< Act. The appellant learnt 
of the proceedings for the first time when 
recovery proceedings were 
started against him for the recovery of the tax. The appellant filed a writ 
petition in the High Court challenging the iecovery of the tax from him. 
The High Court dismissed the petition, which order was upheld in appeal 
unde'r the Letters Patent. In appeal to this Court, the appellaot contended 
tlaat (i) a separate notice under s. 29 of the Act was necessary and unless 
such a notice was given, proceedings could not be initiated against the 
appellant under s. 46 of the Income-tax Act for recovery of the tax; and 
(li) The Collector on receipt of a certificate under s. 46(2) could not 
recover f'rom the appellant the tax due from the unregistered partnership. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : (i) A notice under s. 29 of the Income-tax Act was not 
necessary to be served upon the partner of an unregistered firm before 
proceedings were taken for recovery of the tax under s. 46(2). 
The 
phrase '"other person liable to pay" in s. 29 should be construed as '"other 
person liable to pay under the Income-tax Act and the liability cannot 
therefore be construed with reference to the Partnership Act or any 
other statute. 
In the Income-tax Act itself lhe !;ability is imposed on 
other persons to pay the tax apart from the assessee by several sections. 
Under the Partnership Act liability of the partners of a firm is joint and 
several and it is open to a creditor of the firm to recover the debt of the 
firm from any one or more of the partners. 
But a partner of ao unre-
gistered firm does not fall with in the language of s. 29 of the Income-tax 
Act, for the liability of the partner is not imposed on account of aoy 
provision of the Income-tax Act itself [1002 G-1003 DJ 
(ii) The proceedings taken for recovery of the tax by the respondents 
against the appellaot were legally valid. 
G 
The proviso to s. 46(2) of the Income-tax Act states that the Collec-
tor shall, without prejudice to any other powers in that behalf '"for the 
purpose of recovering the said amount, have the powers which under the 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), a Civil Court has for the pnr-
pose of the recovery of an amount due under a decree." The provisions of 
0. 21, r. 50(2) applied to the present case mutatis mutandis and since 
the appellaot did not dispute that he was a partner of the unregistered 
firm for the relevant accounting year, the Collector could lawfully P,oceed 
H 
to execute the certificate under s. 46(2) against the appellant and recover 
the Income-tax arrears from him. [1003 HJ 
• 
Union of India v. Sat.vanarayan Khan, 42 I.T.R. 42 and 
Ramgopal 
Khemka v. Union of India, 60 I.T.R. 659, approved. 
L!Sup. C. 1./69-18 
• • 
• 
• 
• • 
• 
• 
•1000 
SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS 
[1969] J S.C.R. 
T. 
Got'indaswamy 
v. 
/nco111e-tax Officer, Special Survc:v Circle, 
Bangclore, 38 1.T.R. 197 and i\1oti Purslzottam Das, v. lncorne-tax Officer 
Dist. JI (iii) Kanpur, 39 l.T.R. 497, disapproved. 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1768 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 28, 1964 
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 627 of 1961. 
N. D,. Karkhanis, A. K. Sablok and B. P. Singh, for the appel-
lant. 
B. Sen, G. C. Sharma, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma for 
respondent No. I . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
This appeal is brought by certificate from 
the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated April 28, 1964 
In Special Appeal N°. 627 of 1961 by which the Division Bench 
dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the order of the 
Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition No. 194 of 
1959. 
The appellant alleged that he was a partner of a firm named 
Regal Dchyderating Company, Meerut in which he held 12/53 
share. It was stated that on January 15, 1945 the appellan

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