Notices under s. 13(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act were issued to the former karta after complete partition of his Hindu undivided family. Holding that excess profits tax is assessed on the person and that HUFs are not covered by s. 44 of the Income-tax Act, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
Appeals dismissed with costs, one set of advocates' fee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1043
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GORAKHPUR
v.
RAM PRASAD AND ORS.
Augusl 28, 1972 ·
IK. s. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ,]
8
Indian Income-tax Act 1922-S. 14 and 44-The Excess Profits Tax Act 1940-S, 13(1)-Whether a H.U.F. ca11 be assessed for the purpose of 1xcess profi;s tax even after petition.
Respondent l, the Karta, c:i.rrietl on the family business in the nan1c and •tyle of "Pam Nath Ram Prasad". The Income-Tax assessments for the aseCiSment year 1944-45 and the cxces profits tax aosess:'!1ent for the corc responding chargeable nccounting period ending on October 28, 1943 were •et aside by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal with the direction that fresh orders of assessment be made in accordance with the directions given hy tho Tribunal.
On September 25, 1951, under a scheme for voluntary disclosure, the first responde~t disclosed by means of an application, a sum of Rs. 2,08,450/. and offered the same for taxation.
D
On October !, 1951, the Hindu undivided family was disrupted and . there was a complete partition. Thereafter, fresh assessments to Income Tax were made ior the assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48 taking into consideration the lfsclosure made by the 1st respondent. Subsequently, notiices were·W.ued under s. 13(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 194-0 for certain chargeable accounting periods in the name of the first R.espondent. He tiled writ petitions challenginti the validity of the notices issued.
E
The learned single Judge allowed the petitions holding that the appel· !ant was not competent to take proceedings under the ,.\ct in respect of a Hindu undivided family which hap been divided. On appeal,. the Division Bench also upheld the decision of the learned single Judge. The appellant contended that ( 1) in the case of Excess Profits Tax Act, the tax is levied on the business and not on any individual and therefore, what is relevant is the continuation of the business and not the continuity F of the identity of the assessee; (2) that under Section 44 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922, a firm, or association of person, is jointly and severally liable to assessment and for the amount df tax payable.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: (I) Under s. 14 sub-section (3) of the Excess Profits Tu Act, if a business is carried on jointly during a chargeable accounting period, the assessment should be made upon the persons jointly and in G the case of a partnership, it should be in the name of the partnenhip. Under Sub-Section ( 4), if a pe•son could be assessed either solely or jointly with other person or persons, in case of his death, the assessment may be made on his legal representative e:ther solely, or jointly with the other perso" or persons. The provisions of Section 14 place the matter beyond doubt that the assessment of the tax is on the person in the same manner as under the Income-tax Act. No doubt, under the Income-lox H Act, the computation of tax is on the basis of the income derived by a. person from various sources, while under the Excess Profits Tax Act, it is on the profits of "a bus;ness of the person". Therefore, the chan~e of the oenon who carries on hm'ness is very material so fa.r as the Execs' Profile Tax is concerned. [1048Dl
(1973] l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1044
A
1
Conunissioner of Excess Profits Tax, i\1adras v. Jh:araj Topun and Sons, Madras, 20 LT.It. 143, referred to. (ii) Sectior. 44 of the Ind:an Income Tax Act 1922, applies only to firms and associations of persons. I-Iindu undivided family is' neither a firm. nor an association of persons. It is a separate entity by itself. That is made clear by s. 3 of •he Indian Income Tax Act 1922. Therefore, s. 44 of the Act has no application to the 'facts and circumstances of the cal;c and the impugned n·oticcs ,are invalid. [1049E]
n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. Nos. 257 and 258 oi: 1969.
• Appeals .by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 11, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal Nos. 319 and 320 of 1962.
c
B. Sen, P. L. Juneja, R. N .. <:·1chthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
N. D. Karkhanis, and A. G. Rainaparkhi, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. Aggrieved by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 1057 and 1059 of 1957, the Income-tax Officer, Gorakhpur has brought these appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court. For proper appreci;ltion of the questions of law arising for decision in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the material facts.
The first respondent Ram Prasad was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family which carried on business . in the name and style of "Ram Nath Ram Prasad". Assessments were made on the family for income-tax for the assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48 and for excess profits tax for the corresponding ckarge-· able accounting periods respectively ending on October 28, 1943, October 16, 1944, November 4, 1945 and March 3 J, 1946. . The income-tax assessments for 1he assessment year 1944-45 and the excess profits 1ax assessment for the corresponding chargeable accounting period ending on October 28, 1943 were set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with the direction that fresh orders of assessment be made in accordance with the girections given by the Tribunal. On September 25, 1951, under a scheme ,for voluntary disclosure, the first respondent disclosed by means of an application a sum of Rs. 2,08,450 and offered the same for taxation. On October 1, 1951, tlic Hindu undivided family disrupted and there was a coinplete partition, which was accepted by the department as of that date. Thereafter fresh assessments !<> income-tax were made for the ass~sment years 1944-45 to 1947-48 taking into consideration "
D
E
G
H
l.T.O. GORAKHPUR v. RAM PRASAD tHegde, J.)
1045
The other relevant provisions . are ss. 13 and 14 which read :
H
"13(1) The Excess Profits Tax Officer may, for the purpose of this Act, require any person whom he ):>elieves to be engaged in any business to which this Act applies, or to have been so engag~ during any chargeable accounting period, or to be otherwise liable to pay. excess profits tax to furnish within such period, not bemg less than sixty days from the date of the
[1973] l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1046
"'. ~.
notice, as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth (along with such other particulars as may be provided for in the notice) with respect to any chargeable accounting period specified in the notic'e the profits of the business and the standard profi1s of the business as computed in accordance with the · provisions of section 6 or the amount of deficiency available for relief under section 7 :
Provided that the Excess Profits Tax Officer may, in his discretion, extend the date for the delivery of the return.
(2) The Excess Profits Tax Officer may serve on any person upon whom a notice has been served under sub-section ( 1) a natice requiring him on a date to be therein specified to produce, cause to be produced, such accounts or d,cument as the Excess Profits Tax Officer may. require and may frbm time to time serve further notices· in like Ii1anner requiring the production of such further accounts or documents or other evidence as· he may require :
Provided that the Excess Profits Tax Officer shall not require the production of any accounts relating to a period prior to the "previous year" as determined under section 2 of the Indian Jncome->tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of the inr . me-tax assessment for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937.
14 (1) The Excess Profits Tax Officer shall, by an order in writing after considering such evidence, if any, as he has req\lired under section 13, assess to the best of his judgment the profits liable to excess profits tax and the amount of excess profits tax payable on the basis of such assessment, or if there is a deficiency of. profits; the amount of that deficiency and the amount of excess profits tax, if any, repayable and shall furnish a copy of such order to the person on whom the assessment has been made.
(2) Excess profits tax payable in respect of any chargeable accounting period shall be payable by the . person carrying on the business in that period.
( 3) Where two or more persons were carrying on the business jointly in the chargeable accounting period, the assessment shall be made upon them jQintly and, in the. case of a partnership, may be made in the
A
B
c
D
E
G
II
•
.
!.T.O. GORAKHPUR v. RAM PRASAD (Hegde, !.)
11.17
A
B
chargeable accounting period, the assessment shall be made upon them jointly and, in the case of a partnership name.
( 4) Where by virtue of the foregoing provisions an assessment could, but for his death, have been made on any person either solely or jointly with any other person or persons, the as>essment may be made on his legal representative either solely or jointly with that other person or persons, as the case may be."
Section 21 of the Act attracts some of the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to proceedings under the Act. c That section reads :
"The provisions of sections 4A, 48, 10, 13, 248, 29, 36 to 44C (inclusive) 45 to 48 (inclusive) 49E, 49F, 50, 54, 61 to 63 (inclusive) 65 to 67A (inclusive) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 shall apply with such modifications, if any, as may be pres() cribed as if the said provisions were provisions of this Act and referred to excess profits tax instead of to income-tax, and every officer exercising powers under the said provisions in regard to · ncometax may exercise the like powers under this Act in regard to excess profits tax in respect of cases assigned E to him under sub-section ( 3) of section 3 as he. exercises in relation to income-tax under the said Act :
()
Provided that references in the said provisions to the assessee shall be construed as references to a person to whose business this Act applies."
F The-e is no provision in the Act similar to s. 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in the case of Excess Profits Tax, the tax· is levied on the business and not on any individu<µ and therefore what is relevant is the continuation of the business and not the continuity of the identity of the assessee. According to him if the business in question continues as in the case before us, then the fact that the identity of the person who is continuing the business has changed is not relevant. In support of thi• contention he relied on the language of s. 4 of the Act. It will be noticed that the proviso to that section refers to s. 4 ( 3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 H and the body of the section itself refers to the assessments in respect of any business to which the Act applies, to be charged. levied and paid on the amount by which the profits during any
[1973] l S.C.R.
I 048
SUPREMI! COURT REPORTS
chargeable accounting period exceeds the standard profits. The word "paid'' . in the context can only refer to the person. That is a clear indication that the Act contemplates assessment of the tax on a person though on the basis of the profits from a business. This conclusion receives support from s. 5 of the.Act which states that the Act is to apply to every business of which any part of the profits made during the chargeable accounting period is chargell able to income-tax under the provisions of sub-cl. ( 1), sub-cl. (2) of cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or of cl. ( c) of that sub.-section. No doubt the basis of the assessment is not the receipt of the profits but the accrual, Whether ,. it accrued to a resident or non-resident and whether the accrual was within or without British India in the same manner as under c the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. As observed by the High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Excess Profit~ Tax. Madras v. Jivraj Topun and Sons, Madras: (1 )
D
"The point however is put beyond doubt by Section 14, sub-section (1) of the Act which provides for assessment of the tax after the return is submitted in pursuance of a notice issued under Section 13 of the Act. It requires that the Excess Profits Tax Officer, after completing the assessment should furnish "a copy of such order (that is the assessment order) to the person on whom the assessment has been made", Subsection (2) of that section imposes the liability to pay on the person carrying on the business in that period. Under sub-section (3) if the business is carried on jointly during the chargeable accounting period, the assessment should be made upon the persons jointly and in the case of a partnership it should be in the name of partnership. Under sub-section ( 4) if a person could be assessed either solely or jointly with other person or persons, in case oi his death, the assessment may be made on his legal representative either solely, or jointly with the other person or persons. The provisions of this section therefore place the matter beyond doubt that the assessment of the tax is on the person in the same manner as under .the incomt'· tax Act. No doubt under the Income-tax Act the computation of the tax is on the basis of the income derived by a person from various sources, while under the Excess Profits Tax Act it is on the profits of a business of the person."
G
H
i ' ' tc • foi
~ i
(l) 20 I.T.R. 143.
J.T.O. OORAKHPUR v. RAM PRASAD (Hegde, J.)
1049
A
We are in agreement with these observations. Consequently we are unable to uphold the contention that so long as the business continues, the change of the person who carries on the business is immaterial.
Next Mr. B. Sen, learned Counsel for the appellant sought to seek assistance from s. 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 which section is one of the sections mentioned in s. 21 of the Act. Section 44 of the lndi:an Income-tax Act, 1922 reads thus:
l
.•
c
D
E
F
G
H
"Where any business, profession or vocation carried on by a firm or association of persons has been discontinued, or where an association of persons is dissolved, every person who was at the time of such discontinuance or dissolution a partner of such firm or a member of such assccjation shall, in respect of the income, profits and gains of' the firm ot association, be jointly and severally liable to assessment under Chapter IV and for the amount of tax payable and all the provisions of Chapter IV shall, so far as may be, apply to any such assessment."
This provision applies only to firms and association of persons. Hindu undivided family is neither a firm nor an association of perwns. It is a separate entity by itself. That is made clear by s. 3 of the Indian Income-'lax Act, ! 922 which classifies the assessees under the heads "individuals", "l1indu undivided families", "companies", "local authorities'.', "firms" and "other associations of persons" . . . If Hindu undivided family is to be considered as an association of iiersons, there was no point in making separate provision for the assessment of Hindu undivided families. This conclusion is, J>trengthened by s. 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 which provides for the assessment of Hindu undivided family after its partition.
For whatever reason it may be, the legislature did not include in s; 21 of the Act s. 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 nor did .it make any simiar provision in the Act. That being so, we agree wi1h the High Court that the impugned notices were invalid. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in Jivraj Topun's case (supra) and the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Neekelal Jai- narain(~).
For the reasons mentioned above, the5e appeals fail and they are dismi.ssed with costs-advocates' fee one set. S.C. Appeals dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
(l) 61 l.T.R. 704.
\
2 issues framed by the court
Whether excess profits tax proceedings can be taken against the erstwhile karta after a Hindu undivided family has been partitioned.
Whether Section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applies to a Hindu undivided family.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras v. Jivraj Topun and Sons, MadrasRelied on
20 I.T.R. 143
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Neekelal JainarainReferred
61 I.T.R. 704
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Income-Tax Officer, Gorakhpur
Ram Prasad
Ors.
K. S. Hegde
P. Jaganmohan Reddy
H. R. Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
