TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (4) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1948, the Secretary of the Commission issued a notice to the petitioner to furnish a list of businesses or concerns in which the petitioner was interested and to produce the account books, registers, etc., relating thereto. The petitioner complied with the notice. Then, an authorised official appointed by the Commission commenced an investigation into the cases in February, 1949, and in due course submitted a report to the Commission. The Commission heard the petitioner and on April 16, 1949, submitted a report under section 8A(1) of the Act. The findings of the Commission appear from the following extract from their report : " The total tax payable on the undisclosed income up to March 31, 1947, would accordingly be Rs. 6,61,917...... The amount of Rs. 6,61,917 may be recovered from Mr. Ranjit Singh and from the family assets in the hands of Mr. Ranjit Singh. In view of the admission recorded as number (iii) in paragraph 6 supra, the tax will also be recoverable from the properties acquired between 1939 and 1947 in the names of Mrs. Ranjit Singh and Mr. Ranjit Singh's sons, Baljit Singh and Satendrajit Singh. In the circumstances, we recommend that no penalty be levied on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the terms and conditions of settlement and that all such other proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act or under any other law as may be necessary be taken with a view to enforce the payment of the demand and terms and conditions of the settlement. The respondents allege that a demand notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner on December 2, 1949. The petitioner alleges, however, that he received the notice in or about April, 1950, after the Constitution of India had come into force. Thereafter, in pursuance of the demand notice certain payments were made by the petitioner. The petitioner was, however, unable to make full payment within the stipulated periods mentioned in the demand notice. The result was that according to the terms of settlement the whole amount outstanding at the time became immediately payable by the petitioner. Then, certain properties of the petitioner and his family were attached by the Collector of the district concerned in pursuance of the orders received from time to time from the Income-tax Officer. On June 8, 1959, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the legality of the demand notice dated December 2, 1949, and the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....validity of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act came in for challenge on the ground that the Income-tax Officer could pick out some out of the class of substantial tax evaders and refer their cases under sub-section (1) of section 5 while dealing with other such persons under the amended section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. In Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Visvanatha Sastri sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act was held to be bad on that ground. It should be noted that in none of the petitions disposed of by that judgment had any assessment been made under the Act and this court only prohibited further proceedings before the Commission under the Act. Finally, on December 20, 1955, came the decision of the court in Muthiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case, on a reference under section 5(1) of the Act, the Commission submitted its report to Government under section 8(1) of the Act on August 26, 1952---that is, after the coming into force of the Constitution, and the Central Government made its order under section 8(2) of the Act on September 16, 1952. In these circumstances it was held : " The result, therefore, is that barring the cases of persons which were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2, 1949, in or about April, 1950. In the counter-affidavit of the respondents it has been stated that the assessee was informed of the demand early in December, 1949. A copy of the order of the Central Government under section 8A(2) of the Act dated November 21, 1949, was sent to the petitioner ; there is an endorsement in the office copy of the demand notice dated December 2, 1949, that it was sent by registered post, acknowledgment due. Thereafter, the petitioner paid part of the tax on different dates without raising any objection that he had not received the demand notice before April, 1950. It was for the first time in April, 1959, some ten years after, that the petitioner asked for a copy of the order under section 8A(2) and information as to the date when he had received the registered notice of demand. He also asked for an inspection of the file. This was, however, refused. Then, the petitioner made the statement that he had received the demand notice in or about April, 1950. He said that the statement was based on his knowledge; he did not disclose the source of his knowledge nor did he say how he remembered ten years after, without reference to any documents, that he had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to assess the person by whom such sum is payable as if it were income-tax or an arrear of income-tax within the meaning of those provisions. " The scheme of section 8A is different from that of section 8. The latter section contemplates an assessment or reassessment in accordance with the direction of the Central Government: see sub-section (4) of section 8. That is not the position under section 8A, sub-section (2) whereof provides for the enforcement of the terms of any settlement arrived at in pursuance of sub-section (1). There is no doubt a reference to certain special provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding assessment of partners in a registered firm, tax payable by the representative of a deceased person, etc.; but the reference to those provisions does not necessarily mean that a fresh assessment must be made. They merely show that these special provisions will be applicable in appropriate cases. Sub-section (2) ends by saying that " sections 44 and 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, shall be applicable to the recovery of any sum specified in such settlement by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction to assess the person by whom such sum is payabl....