Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice under section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and the consequent reassessment were valid where deemed dividend under section 23A was sought to be added in the hands of an administrator of a deceased shareholder's estate.
Analysis: The deemed dividend under section 23A was a notional income which, if at all, could be attributed only to the registered shareholder. The court distinguished between assessment of income of the deceased under section 24B, which is confined to tax payable by the deceased and recoverable out of the estate, and assessment of income of the estate arising after death, which is taxed in the hands of the administrator in his own right. Here the department reopened the administrator's assessment for the assessment year 1948-49 under section 34(1)(b), although the alleged deemed dividend related to the deceased shareholder and could not be treated as the administrator's income. If any reassessment was possible at all, it had to be directed to the escaped income of the deceased under the proper statutory route, not by adding the amount to the administrator's subsequent estate income.
Conclusion: The notice under section 34(1)(b) and the reassessment were invalid, and the deemed dividend could not be assessed in the hands of the administrator.