TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Privy Council Upholds Income Tax Act Assessment - Section 26(2) Clarified</h1> <h3>Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga Versus Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga Versus Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues:- Interpretation of Section 26(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 regarding succession in business for tax assessment.- Determining the applicability of the sub-section in cases of succession to a deceased person.- Assessing whether the process of assessment had begun in the case of a deceased person served with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:The judgment in question involves an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Patna regarding the interpretation of Section 26(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The case revolved around the succession to a deceased Maharajadhiraj who had been served with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act before his death. The key issue was whether the successor, the appellant, could be taxed under Section 26(2) as if he had carried on the business throughout the previous year and received all profits for that year.The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax misdirected himself in finding that the business was being carried on by the appellant, contending that the burden of proof lay on the Crown to establish both succession and active business operation by the appellant. The Commissioner's assessment, however, was deemed valid as he considered relevant factors in determining business continuity, despite the non-calling in of outstanding loans not being conclusive evidence of business cessation.Furthermore, the judgment addressed the scope of 'assessment' under Section 26(2), rejecting a narrow interpretation and emphasizing that the process of assessment begins with the issuance of a notice under Section 22(2). The court held that the sub-section applied to cases where the assessment process had commenced, even in situations involving a deceased person served with a notice. It was clarified that the sub-section did not solely pertain to cases of succession inter vivos but encompassed instances of succession to a deceased person as well.Ultimately, the Privy Council advised that the appeal be dismissed, upholding the assessment made under Section 26(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The appellant was directed to bear the costs of the appeal, concluding the judgment delivered by the Privy Council.
TaxTMI 