INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. CH. ATCHAIAH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2513/1977Supreme Court1995 INSC 87611 December 1995Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.N. KIRPAL13 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ch. Atchaiah, and another individual, K, purchased land in 1962. Compensation for this land, including enhanced amounts, was received by them in equal shares. For Assessment Years 1965-66 and 1968-69, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) taxed the capital gains arising from this transaction in the individual hands of Atchaiah and K. Subsequently, in February 1972, the ITO issued notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to both individuals for Assessment Year 1964-65, believing income had escaped assessment. The ITO proposed to tax the entire profit as capital gain in the hands of an Association of Persons (AOP) formed by Atchaiah and K. Atchaiah and K challenged this, arguing that the ITO, having already assessed their individual shares, lacked jurisdiction to tax the same income as an AOP. The High Court allowed their petition, holding that the ITO had an option to tax either the AOP or its members individually and, having exercised the option to tax them individually, could not subsequently tax the AOP.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Officer has no option to tax either an Association of Persons (AOP) or its members individually. The Act mandates taxing the 'right person' who is legally liable for the income. The Court clarified that merely because a 'wrong person' was taxed previously does not prevent the ITO from taxing the 'right person'. The language of Section 4 of the 1961 Act is unambiguous, stating that income tax shall be charged on the total income of 'every person'. The definition of 'person' includes an AOP, but there are no provisions in the 1961 Act granting the ITO an option to tax either the AOP or its members individually. The income of an AOP must be taxed in the hands of the AOP alone. The Court noted that the 1922 Act, unlike the 1961 Act, provided such an option. The Court explicitly stated that it had pronounced only on this question and left other contentions raised by the assessee open to be urged before the ITO. The appeal was allowed, and the writ of prohibition was set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Officer has an option to tax either an Association of Persons (AOP) as a unit or its members individually, similar to the provision under the 1922 Act? (Question of law, concerning Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention (as understood from the High Court's decision and the writ petition): The ITO, having exercised his discretion to assess the income in the hands of the individual members (Atchaiah and K) for earlier assessment years, was precluded from subsequently seeking to tax the same income in the hands of the Association of Persons (AOP). Revenue's Contention: The High Court erred in holding that an option exists under the 1961 Act to tax either the AOP or its members individually. The revenue argued that the correct person must be taxed, and taxing a wrong person does not bar taxing the right person. If the law mandates taxing the AOP, it should be taxed as such, irrespective of prior individual assessments. The revenue contended there was no difference between the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act in this regard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(1),Section 2(31),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

( INCOME TAX OFFICER v. CH. ATCHAIAH DECEMBER 11, 1995 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 4(1)-Levy of income tax on total in- come of every person-Charge of income t~ncome Tax Officer must tax right person and right person alone-No option availabl-Tax has to be levied A B on that person, whether an individual, HUF, Company, Finn, Association of C persons/BOP etc.-D1fference between 1922 Act and 1961 Act.

The respondent and another person K purchased certain land under a sale deed dated 20.10.1962 for a consideration of Rs. 7.5.000. Eve~ prior to the execution of the sale deed, the lands had been notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation amount was received D by the respondent aud K in equal shares. Ou reference, the compensation as enhanced was also shared between the respondent and K in equal proportion.

In the assessment proceedings relating to Assessment year 1965-66, the Income Tax Officer include a sum of Rs. 35,397, au amount determined after deducting the amount contributed by the respondent towards the purchase of the lauds, treating it as the capital gain, in the income of the respon

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 4(1)

All 43 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →