TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nia Chettiar, Elliah Chettiar and Chinnathambi Chettiar. One of the brothers, Subramania Chettiar passed away in 1949 and all the family properties with the exception of the business which was in the name of the company were partitioned. The sons of Subramania Chettiar, one of whom was Nataraja Chettiar, were allotted a fourth share in the properties. In 1962 Nanjappa Chettiar, who was the managing director till then of the company, passed away. On his demise, differences arose between the surviving members of the family. Elliah Chettiar and the sons of Subramania Chettiar wanted to dissociate themselves from the business carried on by the company. At that time, the company had a fleet of 50 buses running on various routes. It was decided o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vehicles, that was challenged by the company on the footing that it was not the owner of the buses. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the company and proceeded to complete the assessment. Aggrieved by that, the company-preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, " A " Range, Coimbatore. By order dated March 16, 1978, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of assessment accepting the contention of the company that the buses have been transferred in favour of the two individuals with whom the company had entered into an agreement, viz., Elliah Chettiar and Natarajan. Consequently, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed a fresh assessment. Pursuant thereto, a fre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1965 and he was also not a party to the agreement dated September 14, 1961, which was the subject-matter of the suit. Learned counsel has taken me through the judgment in that suit and submitted that the judgment nowhere refers to any agreement in favour of Nataraja Chettiar and that the entire judgment related only to the agreement in favour of Elliah Chettiar. No doubt, learned counsel is correct in saying that the Commissioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Sub-Court in the aforesaid suit. The Commissioner has observed as follows : " 8. The next issue raised is that the judgment of the Sub-Court of Coimbatore is not binding on the petitioner. I do not know how the assessee has come to this conclusion when the Sub-Court in u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Appeals Nos. 59-C and 60-C made on March 16, 1978. That was the proceeding taken by the company challenging the assessment made against it on the ground that the buses had already been transferred in favour of two individuals, viz., Elliah Chettiar and Nataraja Chettiar. The said paragraph in the Commissioner's order reads thus : " 11. It is argued that the buses were not transferred to the petitioner family and such transfer is not registered with the Road Transport Authority. Consequently, it is argued that in spite of the agreement, the assessee family was not the beneficial recipient of the income. In this connection, the following extract from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 59-C and 60-C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the civil court but also on the subsequent order passed by the Regional Transport Authority transferring the vehicles in favour of Nataraja Chettiar and Elliah Chettiar. That order was passed at the instance of the company. The order also contains the following observations : " 7. The Income-tax Officer strenuously contended that the income earned from the buses run by Shri A. K. Elliah Chettiar and Shri G. S. Natarajan has been voluntarily offered by them as the income of the appellant as per the returns filed on April 4, 1968, and March 31, 1970, in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, and, therefore, the appellant cannot now be permitted to agitate that they were income accruing to different persons. He fears t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an order in its favour. Thereafter, it is not open to the directors of the company to contend otherwise and claim that individual assessment cannot also be made. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order only relies upon the civil suit and Nataraja Chettiar not being a party to the suit, the order is vitiated. I have already pointed out that the order of the appellate authority was not solely based on the civil suit, but in turn on the relevant records produced before them. When the matter came earlier before another learned judge of this court on April 6, 1994, he passed an order recording an undertaking given by the Government Pleader to produce the records of the Regional Transp....