TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (11) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vested with the Central Government on that date on payment of compensation of Rs. 64.40 lakhs to the erstwhile owner, viz., Cambodia Mills Ltd. The amount to which the dispute relates is comprised of the following taxes : Assessment year Nature of tax Amount outstanding Rs. &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 361 ----------------- Total &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect and the sum payable by the predecessor shall thereafter be payable by and recoverable from the successor, and the successor shall be entitled to recover from the predecessor any sum so paid. (4) Where any business or profession carried on by a Hindu undivided family is succeeded to, and simultaneously with the succession or after the succession there has been a partition of the joint family property between the members or groups of members, the tax due in respect of the income of the business or profession succeeded to, up to date of succession, shall be assessed and recovered in the manner provided in section 171, but without prejudice to the provisions of this section. Explanation : For the purpose of this section 'income' includes any gain accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession." Section 170(2) provides for assessment for the year of succession and in immediately preceding year on the successor if the "predecessor cannot be found". Section 170(3) similarly makes the successor liable for recovery of tax assessed on the predecessor for these two assessments, where the tax "assessed on the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iority basis by following the requirement of the statute of registration of the claim before the Claims Commissioner. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner of Payments called for claims by a press release and the attention of the ITO was drawn by a letter dated 23-4-1977 addressed by Tamilnadu Textiles Corporation Ltd. to him, asking him to file the claim before 30-4-1977. This letter, though acknowledged on 26-4-1977, was not acted upon in time. Since non-priority debts had the benefit of an amount of Rs. 44.54 lakhs left over after meeting other priority debts, it was argued that if the amount has not been collected it is because of the omission or fault of the ITO. Under these circumstances it was claimed that a successor, even if it is a successor, cannot be made liable under section 170(3). 5. In paragraph 5 of the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, it was specifically claimed "In any event before the impugned order was passed, the appellant was not heard, no notice was given to the appellant of any intention of proposal to pass such an order, and no opportunity was given to the appellant". It was, therefore, contended that the order was in violation of p....