Case: Nathmal Tolaram Vs. Superintendent Of Taxes, Dhubri And Another

of any goods chargeable to tax has escaped assessment during the return period, to serve at any time within three years of the aforesaid period, on the dealer liable to pay the tax in respect of such turnover a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-sec. 2 of S. 16 and may proceed to assess or reassess the dealer in respect of such period. But the Commissioner had not issued any such notice under S. 19A. Nor had the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional authority under S. 31 of the Act set aside the original order of assessment. The Commissioner merely directed under S. 32 sub-sec. 8 that the case be disposed of in accordance with the judgment of the High Court, and acting under that direction, the Superintendent of Taxes had no power to reopen the assessment and to call upon the appellants to produce documentary evidence with a view to commence an enquiry whether the sales involved in the case fell "within the purview of the Explanation to S. 2 sub-sec. 12". In any event, the account period as has already been observed was April 1, 1948 to September 30, 1948 and three years from the end of that period, expired before the date on which the notice was issued. Fresh proceedings for reassessment could not be initiated by the Superintendent of Taxes under S. 19 after the expiry of three years from the assessment period assuming that this could be regarded as a case of failure to apply for registration and to make a return required of the appellants. 7. In support of his contention that the Superintendent of Taxes had authority to proceed to reassess the appellants in the light of the observations made in the judgment of the High Court, counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the judgment of the Privy Council in Commr. of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden v. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd., 63 Ind App 408 : (AIR 1936 PC 269 ). In that case, a foreign company was assessed by the Income Tax authorities in the name of a resident company for profits and gains received by the latter as its agent under Ss. 42(1) and 43 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. In a reference under S. 66 of the Income Tax Act, the High Court at Bombay opined that the assessment was illegal. The Commissioner of Income Tax thereafter sent back the case with a direction to set aside the assessment and to make a fresh assessment after making such further enquiry as the Income Tax Officer might think fit. Acting upon that order, the Income Tax Officer required the resident company as agent of the foreign company to produce or cause to be produced books of account for the year of assessment and also to produce such other evidence on which it might seek to rely in respect of its return, and the resident company having failed to produce the books of the foreign company, he proceeded to make an assessment under S. 23(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. By its petition under S. 45 of the Specific Relief Act filed in the High Court at Bombay, the resident company prayed for an order for refund of the taxes already paid under the original assessment, and for an order for disposal of certain proceedings initiated by it before the Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Officer. The High Court made an order directing refund of tax paid, and further directing cancellation of assessment. In an appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Income tax against the order of the High Court, it was observed by the Privy Council that the Commissioner was not obliged to discontinue proceedings against the resident company as agent of the foreign company in respect of the year of assessment, and it was within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under S. 33(2) of the Income Tax Act to direct further enquiry if he thought such an enquiry to be reasoanble and to be profitable in the public interest. 8. The principle of this case has in our judgment no application to the present case. The High Court at Bombay in its advisory jurisdiction had declared the assessment already made to be illegal. But the Commissioner was under S. 33 of the Indian Income Tax Act invested with jurisdiction to direct further enquiry, and he purported to exercise that jurisdiction. The Privy Council rejected the challenge to the exercise of that jurisdiction. In the present case, no proceedings were started by the Commissioner of Taxes in exercise of his revisional authority. The Commissioner of Taxes had directed the Superintendent of Taxes merely to dispose of the case according to the judgment of the High Court, and the Superintendent had to carry out that order. If he was competent - and on that question, we express no opinion - he could if the conditions precedent to the exercise of his jurisdiction existed, proceed to reassess the appellants. But the proceedings for reassessment were clearly barred because the period prescribed for reassessment had expired. The Superintendent therefore had no power to issue a notice calling upon the appellants to produce evidence to enable him to start an enquiry which was barred by the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by the Act. In the Bombay Trust Corporation case (supra), the Income Tax Officer acted in pursuance of the direction of the Commissioner lawfully given in exercise of revisional authority and reopened the assessment. In the present case, no such direction has been given by an authority competent in that behalf : and the Superintendent had no power to reassess the income under S. 19 assuming that the section applied to a case where the assesse though registered had failed to include his sales in a particular commodity in his turnover, because the period of limitation prescribed in that behalf had expired.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. The principle of this case has in our judgment no application to the present case. The High Court at Bombay in its advisory jurisdiction had declared the assessment already made to be illegal. But the Commissioner was under S. 33 of the Indian Income Tax Act invested with jurisdiction to direct further enquiry, and he purported to exercise that jurisdiction. The Privy Council rejected the challenge to the exercise of that jurisdiction. In the present case, no proceedings were started by the Commissioner of Taxes in exercise of his revisional authority. The Commissioner of Taxes had directed the Superintendent of Taxes merely to dispose of the case according to the judgment of the High Court, and the Superintendent had to carry out that order. If he was competent - and on that question, we express no opinion - he could if the conditions precedent to the exercise of his jurisdiction existed, proceed to reassess the appellants. But the proceedings for reassessment were clearly barred because the period prescribed for reassessment had expired. The Superintendent therefore had no power to issue a notice calling upon the appellants to produce evidence to enable him to start an enquiry which was barred by the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by the Act. In the Bombay Trust Corporation case (supra), the Income Tax Officer acted in pursuance of the direction of the Commissioner lawfully given in exercise of revisional authority and reopened the assessment. In the present case, no such direction has been given by an authority competent in that behalf : and the Superintendent had no power to reassess the income under S. 19 assuming that the section applied to a case where the assesse though registered had failed to include his sales in a particular commodity in his turnover, because the period of limitation prescribed in that behalf had expired.