Business connection and deemed agency in India sustained; procedural notice defects did not invalidate the assessments.

A continuous and intimate Indian procurement arrangement can amount to a business connection where the non-resident's activities through the assessee involve sourcing raw material, vetting suppliers and supervising contracts up to shipment, making income attributable to that connection assessable in India. On the same facts, the assessee may be treated as a deemed agent, and the Income-tax Officer's estimate of income can be sustained if it is not shown to be perverse. The sequence and timing of notices under the agent-assessment procedure do not by themselves invalidate the assessments absent prejudice or denial of opportunity. Rectification was held competent where the original assessment contained an error apparent on the record and the correction could extend to the whole order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the non-resident had a business connection in India through the assessee so that income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India; (ii) whether the assessee could be treated as the non-resident's agent and the extent of the income assessable through that connection; (iii) whether the assessments for 1957-58 and 1958-59 were invalid because notice under section 43 was issued after notice under section 22; (iv) whether the assessment for 1954-55 was invalid for want of prior opportunity under section 43; (v) whether the Income-tax Officer could rectify the 1954-55 assessment under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the non-resident had a business connection in India through the assessee so that income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India.

Analysis: The arrangement between the non-resident and the assessee was not confined to casual or isolated services. It related to procurement of raw material from India, advice on the reliability of suppliers, and supervision of execution of contracts up to shipment. That activity had a real and intimate relation with the non-resident's business and contributed to the regular and proper procurement of ore and to the earning of profits. A mere commercial connection would not suffice, but the facts disclosed a continuous business connection within the meaning of the charging provision.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could be treated as the non-resident's agent and the extent of the income assessable through that connection.

Analysis: Since the non-resident had a business connection in India and the assessee was the person through whom that connection operated, the assessee could be proceeded against as a deemed agent. The income attributable to the purchasing activity in India was assessable in the assessee's hands, and the estimate adopted by the Income-tax Officer was not shown to be perverse or unsupported by material.

Conclusion: The assessee was liable to be treated as an agent, and the quantum was upheld to the extent found by the Income-tax Officer, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessments for 1957-58 and 1958-59 were invalid because notice under section 43 was issued after notice under section 22.

Analysis: The notice under section 43 was not the foundation of liability but a procedural safeguard before enforcement of assessment as an agent. The assessee had been apprised of the proposed treatment and given an opportunity to show cause before the assessment was made. The sequence of notices did not vitiate the proceedings, and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The assessments were not invalidated, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether the assessment for 1954-55 was invalid for want of prior opportunity under section 43.

Analysis: A notice dated 20 March 1957 informed the assessee of the proposed action under section 43 and fixed an opportunity to object before the assessment proceeded. The assessee sought more time, which was declined, but that did not amount to denial of the statutory opportunity. The procedural objection therefore failed.

Conclusion: The assessment for 1954-55 was not invalid, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (v): Whether the Income-tax Officer could rectify the 1954-55 assessment under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The original assessment was already shown to be illegal and without jurisdiction, and the defect was an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of rectification extends to correcting the error, and if the correction necessarily affects the whole order, the officer is not confined to a partial amendment. The merger objection did not prevail on the facts, and rectification was competent.

Conclusion: The rectification was competent, in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference on the substantive tax liability and procedural objections was answered predominantly against the assessee, while the companion reference on rectification was answered in favour of the assessee, resulting in a mixed outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: A continuous and intimate connection between a non-resident's Indian procurement activity and the assessee's supervisory role can constitute a business connection under the income-tax law, and rectification may extend to correcting an order in a manner that removes an error apparent on the face of the record even if the correction affects the entire order.

---