TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (4) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stated that the appellant did not have any place of business or establishment or connection with India. Upto 1955, the appellant held all the shares of M/s. Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under the, Indian Companies Act, 1913. Since 1956, the appellant No. 1 has been holding 51% shares in the Indian company. The appellant No, 2, B. N. Garg, was appointed a director of the appellant No. 1 for the purpose of looking after certain pending litigations in India. It appears that on the 6th December, 1974, the ITO, Company Dist. II, Calcutta, wrote a letter to the appellant No. 2 for and on behalf of the appellant No. 1 wherein it was stated that the income had escaped assessment in terms of cl. (a) of a. 147 and, therefore, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as issued. The said notice was addressed in the manner as follows: " To M/s. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. represented by Sri B.N. Garg., Director, 3, Park Mansion, Park St. Cal. The appellants challenged the said notice in an application made under art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It was mainly contended on behalf of the appellants (who were the petitioners in the court of the first instance) that the appellant No. 2 was not and/or could not be treated as a principal officer as defined in s. 2(35) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the " said Act "). Therefore, the notice under s. 148 was not properly served as required under s. 282 of the said Act. Inasmuch as there was no proper service of the said notice under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should be actually managing or administering the company. What is required in connection with the management or the administration of the company. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the finding that the petitioner No. 2 was connected with the management or administration of petitioner No. 1 is based on no material or is wholly arbitrary. It is the Income-tax Officer's intention that is important on this aspect of the matter provided his intention was based upon some material.... It was then contended that before treating a person concerned as principal officer under section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer should determine that question upon hearing the submission or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that before a person is treated as a principal officer under s. 2.(35)(b) he should be given a notice of the proposal or intention of the ITO so that he might make a representation before a final decision was taken by him; otherwise, it was merely an empty ritual. According to counsel, the condition laid down in the said sub-section is not an empty formality or empty ritual but a safeguard against a decision of the ITO which may affect a person concerned. It was also the submission of the counsel that on the materials there was nothing to show that Garg was connected with the management and administration of the company. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the notice under s. 148 was addressed to Hungerford Investme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR 106 (SC). It has been submitted that the question whether a person is a principal officer of the company should be determined in the assessment proceeding. The determination of the question of principal officer does not arise before the determination of the question of liability of the assessee. In the instant case, in our view, the learned judge of the court of first instance came to a correct finding. We respectfully agree with the findings of the learned judge of the court of first instance as also with the reasoning for such finding. The appellant No. 2 is the only director in India of the appellant-company. Excepting the appellant No. 2 there is no other person in India connected with the management or administration of the appell....