Case: The Income Tax Officer, Distt. II (ii), Kanpur &amp; Others Vs. Mani Ram &amp; Others

S. 18A (1) so as to include only a "regular assessment" under Section 23 of the Act. There is no reason why Parliament did not add the word "regularly" in the sub-section so as to qualify the word "assessed". Since there is no such qualification, the word "assessed" in Section l8A (3) should be read in its ordinary sense as including every kind of assessment including a provisional assessment under Section 23B of the Act.7. In the last place, counsel on behalf of the appellants referred to the language of Sections 210 and 212 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which state:"210. Order by Income Tax Officer :- (1) where a person has been previously assessed by way of regular assessment under this Act or under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the Income Tax Officer may, on or after the 1st day of April in the financial year, by order in writing require him to pay to the credit of the Central Government advance tax determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 207, 208 and 209.(2) The notice of demand issued under Section 156 in pursuance of such order shall specify the instalments in which the advance tax is payable under Sec. 211.(3) If, after the making of an order by the Income Tax Officer under this Section and before the 15th day of February of the Financial year tax is paid by the assessee under Section 140-A or a regular assessment or a provisional assessment under Section 141 of the assessee or of the registered firm of which he is a partner is made in respect of a previous year later than that referred to in the order of the Income Tax Officer, the Income Tax Officer may make an amended order requiring the assessee to pay in one instalment on the specified date, or in equal instalments on the specified dates, if more than one, falling after the date of the amended order, the advance tax computed on the basis of the total income on which tax has been paid under Section 140-A or in respect of which the regular assessment or the provisional assessment aforesaid has been made as reduced by the amount, if any, pad in accordance with the original order.212. Estimate by assessee, - (l) . . . . .* * * * * * *(3) Any person who has not previously been assessed by way of regular assessment under this Act or under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) shall, before the first day of March in each financial year, if his total income exclusive of capital gains of the period which would be the previous year for the immediately following assessment year is likely to exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax in his case by two thousand five hundred rupees, send to the Income Tax Officer-(i) an estimate of the total income exclusive of capital gains of the said previous year;(ii) an estimate of the advance tax payable by him calculated in the manner laid down in Section 209;and shall pay such amount as accords with his estimate, on such of the dates specified in Section 211 as have not expired, by instalments which may be revised according to sub-section (2) ".8. The argument was that these Sections apply to a case of a regular assessment an the enactment of these Sections should be treated as a Parliamentary exposition of Section 18A (3) of the earlier Act as referring only to a case of regular assessment. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. There is nothing in 1961 Act to suggest that Parliament intended to explain the meaning or clear up doubts about the meaning of the word "assessed" in Section 18A (3) of the earlier Act.Generally speaking, a subsequent Act of Parliament affords no useful guide to the meaning of another Act which came into existence before the later one was ever framed. Under special circumstances, the law does however admit of a subsequent Act to be resorted to for this purpose but the conditions under which the later Act may be resorted for the interpretation of the earlier Act are strict; both must be laws on the same subject and the part of the earlier Act which it is sought to construe must be ambiguous and capable of different meanings.For example, in Kirkness (Inspector of Taxes) v. John Hudson and Co. Ltd., 1955 AC 696 it was held by the House of Lords that the ordinary meaning of the word "sale" importing a consensual relation is to be attributed to the use of it in the context of S. 17 (1) (a) of the Act of 1945. Since there was no ambiguity in the Section, it was not permissible to seek guidance in its construction from later Finance Acts, although it was directed by Parliament to be construed as one with them. At page 714 of the Report Viscount Simonds states:"I have looked at the later Acts to which the Attorney General referred to in order to satisfy myself that they do not contain a retrospective declaration as to the meaning of the earlier Act. They clearly do not, and I do not think that it has been contended that they do. At the highest it can be said that they may proceed upon an erroneous assumption that the word "sold in Section 17 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1945, has a meaning which I hold it has not. This may be so and, if so, it is an excellent example of the proposition to which reference was made in the report of the Committee of the Privy Council. In In re, Mac Manasway, 1951 AC 161 and again by my noble and learned friend Lord Radcliffe in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Dowdall, OMahoney and Co. Ltd., 1952 AC 401 that the beliefs or assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament cannot make the law."

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It should be noticed that the Parliament introduced certain amendments in S. 18A of the Act consequential to the introduction of S. 23B of the Act. There is a reference to the provisional assessment made under Section 23B in sub-section (5) of Section 18A, but Parliament took no step to restrict the meaning of the word "assessed" in Section 18A (3) so as to exclude a reference to provisional assessment under Section 23B of the Act. If Parliament contemplated that Section 18A (3) should apply only in the case of a "regular assessment", there was no reason why it did not put some qualifying words or expressions before or after the word "assessed" in Section 18A (1). It is not possible to accept the submission of the appellants that Parliament in fact intended to bring about such a decision but only accidentally omitted to do so. On the other hand, the language of Section 18A (1) as it stands, can only lead to interpretation that the provisions contained in it would become applicable whenever a person has been assessed whatever be the nature of the assessment- whether it be a regular assessment or a provisionalare unable to accept this argument as correct. There is nothing in 1961 Act to suggest that Parliament intended to explain the meaning or clear up doubts about the meaning of the word "assessed" in Section 18A (3) of the earlier Act.