1967 (12) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Supreme Court upholds validity of Income-tax Act notices, dismissing appeals challenging rectification proceedings

S Sankappa And Others Versus Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle II, Bangalore

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notices issued under Section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, dismissing the appeals challenging the ... Assessment of the firm originally made under 1922 Act as unregistered firm. Assessment rectified on the basis that firm was a registered firm - hence rectification of partners` assessment after repeal of 1922 Act. is saved by 1961 Act - assessee's appeal is dismissed Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notices issued under Section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of Section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.3. Whether the proceedings for rectification under Section 35(5) can be considered as proceedings for assessment.4. Nature of the orders passed on 20th December, 1966, by the Income-tax Officer.5. Satisfaction of conditions precedent for invoking Section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notices Issued Under Section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The appellants challenged the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, proposing to rectify their individual assessments for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants, leading to the present appeals. It was conceded before the High Court that proceedings for rectification could not be taken under Section 155 of the Act of 1961, as the rectifications related to assessments for years when the Act of 1922 was applicable. Therefore, proceedings could only be taken under Section 35(5) of the Act of 1922 in view of Section 297(2)(a) of the Act of 1961.2. Applicability of Section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922:The appellants argued that proceedings for rectification under Section 35(5) of the Act of 1922 cannot be considered as proceedings for assessment within the meaning of Section 297(2)(a) of the Act of 1961. They contended that no fresh computation of income was involved when the Income-tax Officer passed orders on 20th December, 1966, to give effect to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision granting registration to the firms. The High Court rejected this submission, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, stating that the term 'assessment' in the Income-tax Act has a comprehensive meaning, including all proceedings from filing the return to determining the tax payable.3. Whether the Proceedings for Rectification Under Section 35(5) Can be Considered as Proceedings for Assessment:The Supreme Court emphasized that proceedings for rectification of assessment to tax under Section 35(1) or Section 35(5) of the Act of 1922 must be considered as proceedings for assessment. The Income-tax Officer corrects errors or rectifies orders of assessment, making such corrections part of the assessment proceedings. The court referred to its previous decisions in Abraham v. Income-tax Officer and Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax to support this view.4. Nature of the Orders Passed on 20th December, 1966, by the Income-tax Officer:The appellants argued that the orders made by the Income-tax Officer on 20th December, 1966, were not orders of assessment, as they merely recalculated the tax payable by the firms and apportioned the income between the partners. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the orders consisted of recalculating the tax payable by the firms and apportioning the income among the partners. The court held that these orders were part of the proceedings for assessment of the firms.5. Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent for Invoking Section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922:The appellants contended that the conditions precedent for invoking Section 35(5) of the Act of 1922 were not satisfied, as there was no finding that the share of the partner in the profit or loss of the firm had not been included in the assessment or was incorrect. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the shares of the income of the partners were never included for the purpose of bringing those shares to tax in their individual assessments. The court explained that Section 35(5) was enacted to address situations where the imposition of tax on the firm as an unregistered firm is set aside, allowing tax to be imposed on the partners' shares in their individual assessments.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the notices issued under Section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and confirming that the proceedings for rectification were part of the assessment process. The court also held that the conditions precedent for invoking Section 35(5) were satisfied, and the Income-tax Officer acted correctly in issuing the impugned notices. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and one hearing fee was awarded.