TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant No. 2 made an application for disclosure of income before the income-tax authority and offered to pay tax on the said amount. It was disclosed in the said petition that the said income was for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62 during the period when Surjit was a partner. The income-tax authority allowed the application by accepting such undisclosed income of Rs. 46.15 lakhs and assessed tax accordingly. The income-tax authority imposed the assessed tax accordingly amongst the partners including Surjit. When the order was served on Surjit, Surjit by letter dated May 12, 1969, informed the Revenue that he did not get any benefit of the said sum of Rs. 46.15 lakhs. Since he had retired from the partnership long ago such assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the tax liability. Before the learned single judge Surjit also filed affidavit reiterating that he did not get any benefit of such alleged undisclosed income of Rs. 46.15 lakhs and such tax liability should be discharged by the firm itself and its existing partners. The learned single judge by his Lordship's judgment and order dated April 22, 2003, dismissed the writ petition inter alia holding as follows: "(i) The partnership deed dated March 3, 1961, shows that the continuing partners took upon themselves the liability of the firm which included liability to sundry creditors amounting to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 46.15 lakhs. (ii) Respondent No. 5 was not liable according to the said deed of partnership to pay any part o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....997] 5 SCC 536 at page 633 a nine-judge Bench of the apex court has held that 'power of the court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person'." Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned single judge the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dr. Debiprasad Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeal contended as follows: (i) Before issuing any order of attachment and before taking a decision to recover the tax liability from the firm under section 182(4) of the said Act, 1961, the Revenue would have to form an opinion that such liability could not be recovered from the partner upon whom it was sought to be imposed. (ii) Assuming that such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant showing cause the Revenue rejected their contentions by order dated April 11, 1980, appearing at pages 116-118 of the paper book. The appellant, however, approached this court in 1990. Such belated challenge was rightly refused by the learned single judge. (iv) The appellant had an alternative remedy of an appeal against the order of the Revenue. The appellant without exhausting the remedy available in law approached this court and the learned single judge rightly rejected the same. Surjit initially appeared before the learned single judge. However, Mr. Raja Basu, learned advocate appearing for Surjit prayed for leave to retire before us and as such no submission was made on behalf of Surjit before us. In support of their c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spite rejection of their prayer to the extent that they should be absolved from such liability, the appellant did not discharge such statutory liability. Hence, the Revenue was entitled to invoke section 182(4). The reason for invoking section 182(4) was clearly spelt in the said order passed by the Revenue challenged in the writ petition. In any event, the order of rejection of their contention passed by the Revenue on April 11, 1980, directing the firm to discharge the tax liability was not contemporaneously challenged by the appellant and such belated attempt, in our view, is not maintainable. The writ court is a court of equity. The writ court exercises discretion considering the facts and circumstances involved in the said case. In ....