LexTHE COMMISSIONER 0]' INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY I, BOMBAY versus M/S. NARSEE NAGSEE AND CO., BOMBAY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Jai i<aur v. Sher Singh Das Gttpta J. Ig60 May 6. 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] dJ.ughters in posses~ion, would not become full owners under s. 14. We do not think it would be proper to consider these questions in the present suit in this haphazard manner when on the all-important question of possession, the appellants themselves do not wish to say whether the mother was in possession actually or constructively, whether the danghters' possession was merely permissive, or whether the daughters were in independent possession, on their own behalf. These and other questions of fact, and the questions of law that have to be considered in deciding a claim by tho first appellant or the other two appellants under s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, should properly be considered in any suit that they may bring in future, if so advised. We express no opinion on any of these questions. For the reasons which have been mentioned earlier, we hold that the High Court rightly decreed the snit in favonr of the plaintiffs in respect of the non- ancestral property also, and dismiss the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, we order that the parties will bear their own costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. THE COMMISSIONER 0]' INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY I, BOMBAY v. M/S. NARSEE NAGSEE AND CO., BOMBAY. (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR and M. HrnAYATUI,LAH, JJ.) Business Profits Tax-Limitation for assessment-Notice under Business Profits Tax Act issued beyond four years-Validity- ,, Profits escaping assessm-ent ", meaning of-Excess JYrofits Tax Act, 1940 (15 of 1940), ss.13, 15-Indian Income-tax Act,1922 (II of 1922), ss. 22(2), 34(1)-Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax Amendment Act, 1947 (22 of 1947)-Business Profits Tax Act, 1947 (21 of 1947), SS. II(I), 14. The assessee firm which was doing business in Bombay \vas served with a notice on January 21, 1953, by the Income-tax , Officer under s. n(1) of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947· in respect of the chargeable accounting period from November 13, 1947, to October 31, 1948, calling upon it to submit its return. It filed the return under protest stating that the notice was barred under s. 14 of the Act as it was served beyond the period of four •• - - l .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 989 years. The question was whether in s. II of the Act a limitation 1960 corresponding to the limitation contained in s. 14 must be neces- sarily read and whether in a case where the profits were not Commissioner of brought to assessment because notice under s. II was not issued Income Ta" in time, they must be deemed to have escaped assessment and v. action could only be taken under s. 14 within the time specified N""" N,,gsee therein ; &- Co. Held (per S. K. Das and Kapur, J]., Hidayatullah, J., dissenting), (r) that the words "profits escaping assessment" in s. 14 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, apply equally to cases where a notice was received by the assessee but resulted in no assessment, under-assessment or excessive relief, and to cases where due to any reason no notice was issued to the assessee and therefore there was no assessment of his income ; (2) that ss. II and 14 of the Act have to be read together and ·that a notice under s. II cannot be issued against an assessee beyond the period of four years indicated in s. I4· Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. IO and Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Stqt,e of Bihar, [1960) r S.C.R. 332, relied on. Gokuldas Ratanji Mandavia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] A.C. rr4, distinguished. Per Hidayatullah, ].-Section II of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, is confined to cases where there has been no prior assessment, while s. I4 is applicable to cases where after an assessment there is discovery that profits have escaped assess- ment due to one reason or another. The use of the words " escaped assessment " in the context of the Act has reference only to those cases where profits of a business were brought to process once but for some reason some profits escaped assessment or were µnder-assessed or received excessive relief. For the subsequent and re-openert assessment there is a limit of four years, but for the assessment for the first time there is no limit. C1vu, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1958. Appeal from the judgment, and order dated September 5, 1956, of the Bombity High Court in Income-tax R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.