1951 (3) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal invalidates Excess Profits Tax Act proceedings against dissolved Hindu family

Commissioner of Excess Profits-tax Versus Jivaraj Topun & Sons

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing that proceedings initiated under the Excess Profits Tax Act against a Hindu undivided family ... - Issues:1. Validity of proceedings initiated under the Excess Profits Tax Act against a Hindu undivided family after partition and disruption.2. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act regarding notice issuance to a member of a disrupted family.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment dealt with the validity of proceedings initiated under the Excess Profits Tax Act against a Hindu undivided family post-partition. The case involved an undivided family, Messrs. Jivaraj Topun and Sons, Madras, which claimed division on 4th October, 1941. Despite the department accepting the partition, the Excess Profits Tax Officer assessed the family's income as a joint entity. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal disagreed, stating that once the family ceased to exist at the time of notice issuance, calling for a return was invalid. The Tribunal highlighted that the Income-tax Act's Section 63, applicable to Excess Profits Tax Act proceedings, did not apply when the family no longer existed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of provisions to address defunct undivided families under the Excess Profits Tax Act.2. The interpretation of Section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Commissioner argued that the Act allowed assessment of business profits even after cessation, by serving notice on any family member. However, the Tribunal and the respondent contended that without a provision akin to Income-tax Act's Section 25 A, maintaining joint family status post-disruption, assessing defunct undivided families would be impractical. The judgment emphasized that under the Act, a 'person' included a Hindu undivided family. Therefore, the notice under Section 13 should pertain to the family as a unit if the business was previously owned by the undivided family. The judgment highlighted the lacuna in the Act, acknowledging the difficulty in assessing defunct families. Ultimately, the Tribunal's view was upheld, emphasizing the need to interpret the Act's language as it stands, without filling legislative gaps to capture escaped assessments.In conclusion, the judgment favored the respondent, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the Excess Profits Tax Act's provisions in the context of a partitioned Hindu undivided family.