Case: Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland Vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal

within time, reliance was placed by the department on the second proviso to section 34(3). That proviso reads" Provided further that nothing contained in this section limiting the time within which any action may be taken or any order, assessment or reassessment maybe made, shall apply to a reassessment made under section 27 or to an assessment or reassessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33A, section 33B, section 66 or section 66A." 4. What was contended on behalf of the department is that the reassessment in this case was made under section 27. That contention has been upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. But the High Court has come to the conclusion that the reassessment was not made under that section 5. To recapitulate the facts which we have earlier mentioned, the return submitted by Saharia was in his capacity as the karta of his family. The status shown in the return is Hindu undivided family. He filed no return in the status of an individual. The same person can be taxed both as an individual as well as the karta of his family. The two capacities are totally different. The liability to be taxed as an individual is different from the liability to be taxed on behalf of his Hindu undivided family. The individual and the Hindu undivided family are totally different units of taxation. They are two different assessees. The ex parte order was made on February 29, 1960, against Saharia in the status of an individual. What was set aside under section 27 was the assessment made on him in the status of an individual. There was no assessment against the Hindu undivided family. Hence, there was no question of setting aside any assessment made against the Hindu undivided family. On February 6, 1961, the Hindu undivided family was assessed for the first time though the Income-tax Officer wrongly called it as a fresh assessment. On the facts established, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the assessment made against the Hindu undivided family was an assessment under section 27. That being so, the assessment made against the Hindu undivided family on February 6, 1961, is clearly barred by time. Hence, the High Court was justified in answering the first question against the departmentNow, coming to the second question, the relevant facts are these 6. In the relevant previous years to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, certain loans had been advanced to the Hindu undivided family by a company known as M/s. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal has found that Saharia had held certain shares in that company. Its further finding is that he held those shares as the karta of his Hindu undivided family. Therefore, the question that arose for decision was whether those loans can be considered as " dividends " as provided in clause (e) of section 2(6A). There was controversy between the parties whether those shares were held by Saharia in his individual capacity or as the karta of the family. That controversy has not been gone into by the High Court. At present we are proceeding on the basis that he held those shares as the karta of his family. Clause(e) of section 2(6A) says" Dividend includes (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by any such company on behalf or for the individual benefit of a shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits." 7. It is not disputed that M/s. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. is not a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is a private company. The only question that was in issue was that as the shares in question stood in the name of Saharia, can they in law be considered as the shares of the Hindu undivided family ? The High Court held that, for the purpose of the Act, they must be considered as the shares of Saharia and, therefore, any loan granted by M/s. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. Ltd. to the Hindu undivided family cannot come within the scope of clause (e) to section 2(6A). In arriving at the conclusion, the High Court differed from the view taken by the Mysore High Court in Kishanchand Lundasingh Bajaj v. Commissioner of Income-tax , wherein that court held that the provisions of section 18(5), 23A and 16(2) and other provisions of the Act relating to shares and dividends do not lead to the conclusion that for the purposes of assessment to income-tax dividend income derived by a benami holder of shares should be treated as his own income and not that of the real owner of the shares which have yielded the dividend income. That decision was affirmed by this court in Kishanchand, Lunidasingh Bajaj v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Therein, this court held that where the shares acquired with the funds of the Hindu undivided family were held in the name of the karta, the Hindu undivided family could be assessed to tax under the Act on the dividend from those shares. In view of that decision we must hold that the High Court erred in its answer to the second question. Hence, that answer is discharged and in its place we answer that question in favour of the department. But, we hasten to, make it clear that in respect of the loan granted in the account year previous to the assessment year 1955-56, the same cannot be brought to tax, as assessment in respect of that year was not made within the time prescribed

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

Explanation:
0[ds]3. It is not the case of the department that the assessment in question either falls under clause (c) ofn (1) of section 28 or clause (a) ofn (1) orn (1A) of section 34. Therefore, the department cannot take any assistance from the main section 34(3)5. To recapitulate the facts which we have earlier mentioned, the return submitted by Saharia was in his capacity as the karta of his family. The status shown in the return is Hindu undivided family. He filed no return in the status of an individual. The same person can be taxed both as an individual as well as the karta of his family. The two capacities are totally different. The liability to be taxed as an individual is different from the liability to be taxed on behalf of his Hindu undivided family. The individual and the Hindu undivided family are totally different units of taxation. They are two different assessees. The ex parte order was made on February 29, 1960, against Saharia in the status of an individual. What was set aside under section 27 was the assessment made on him in the status of an individual. There was no assessment against the Hindu undivided family. Hence, there was no question of setting aside any assessment made against the Hindu undivided family. On February 6, 1961, the Hindu undivided family was assessed for the first time though thex Officer wrongly called it as a fresh assessment. On the facts established, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the assessment made against the Hindu undivided family was an assessment under section 27. That being so, the assessment made against the Hindu undivided family on February 6, 1961, is clearly barred by time. Hence, the High Court was justified in answering the first question against the departmentNow, coming to the second question, the relevant facts are these7. It is not disputed that M/s. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. is not a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is a private company. The only question that was in issue was that as the shares in question stood in the name of Saharia, can they in law be considered as the shares of the Hindu undivided family ? The High Court held that, for the purpose of the Act, they must be considered as the shares of Saharia and, therefore, any loan granted by M/s. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. Ltd. to the Hindu undivided family cannot come within the scope of clause (e) to section 2(6A). In arriving at the conclusion, the High Court differed from the view taken by the Mysore High Court in Kishanchand Lundasingh Bajaj v. Commissioner ofx , wherein that court held that the provisions of section 18(5), 23A and 16(2) and other provisions of the Act relating to shares and dividends do not lead to the conclusion that for the purposes of assessment tox dividend income derived by a benami holder of shares should be treated as his own income and not that of the real owner of the shares which have yielded the dividend income. That decision was affirmed by this court in Kishanchand, Lunidasingh Bajaj v. Commissioner of. Therein, this court held that where the shares acquired with the funds of the Hindu undivided family were held in the name of the karta, the Hindu undivided family could be assessed to tax under the Act on the dividend from those shares. In view of that decision we must hold that the High Court erred in its answer to the second question. Hence, that answer is discharged and in its place we answer that question in favour of the department. But, we hasten to, make it clear that in respect of the loan granted in the account year previous to the assessment year, the same cannot be brought to tax, as assessment in respect of that year was not made within the time prescribed