CLAGGETT BRACHI CO. LTD., LONDON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A.P.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 208/1975Supreme Court[1989] 2 S.C.R. 73126 April 1989Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, RANGANATH MISRA6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident sterling company, conducted business in tobacco purchase and sale, including on commission, through Indian agents. For assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, assessments were completed under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, based on returns filed by the agents. During the assessment for AY 1962-63, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) discovered a mistake in computing overhead expenditure, believing income had escaped assessment for the earlier years. Notices for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to the agents but dropped due to being time-barred under Section 149(3). Subsequently, the ITO issued notices directly to the assessee, who filed returns under protest. The ITO made reassessments, which were upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but set aside by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court, on reference, ruled in favour of the Revenue, holding the reassessments valid and permissible against the assessee.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the reassessments were justified. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the ITO realized income had escaped assessment while processing a subsequent year's assessment. Information from that assessment revealed that overhead expenses related to the entire business, including commission agency, not just tobacco purchase and sale. The Court noted that the ITO's attention was not drawn to this fact during the original assessment, and the information came into possession during subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the case fell within Section 147(b), justifying reassessment. Concerning the second issue, the Court stated that while an ITO can assess either a non-resident assessee or their agent, an assessment on one precludes assessment on the other. However, since the reassessment proceedings against the agents were barred by time under Section 149(3), they had to be ignored and could not operate as a bar to direct reassessment proceedings against the assessee. The High Court's view was upheld.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessments initiated under Section 148 for assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 were justified, considering they were consequent on a change in the method of computation of profits? (Question of law) 2. Whether, after original assessments were made on the agents, reassessment proceedings could be initiated directly against the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The ITO lacked jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 as the prerequisite conditions were not satisfied. - It was not open to the ITO to initiate assessment proceedings against the assessee when he had already proceeded against its Indian agents. Revenue's contentions: - The reassessments were not due to a mere change of opinion but based on information received subsequent to the original assessments, indicating overhead expenses related to the entire business, not just purchase and sale of tobacco. - The ITO was entitled to proceed directly against the assessee when reassessment proceedings against the agents were time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 149(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CLAGGEIT BRACH! CO. ·LTD., LONDON v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A.P. APRIL 26, 1989 [R.S. PATHAK, CJ, AND RANQANATH MISRA, J.] )

Indian Income Tax Act, 1922/lncome Tax Act 1961: Section 23(3)/Section 147-149-Reassessment consequent on change in m~thod of computation of profits-Whether permissible-Original assessment made on agents-Reassessment-Whether could be initiated .against r,i~sessee . .\ A B c ; - }- The appellant-assessee, a non-resident sterling company, carry· ··~. I ing on business of purchase and sale of tobacco, on its own and for commission, effected purchases through its Indian agents. The agents filed returns of income on behalf of the assessee for the assessment years 1959·60 and 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment D to tax under s. 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. However, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assess· ment year 1962·63, the.Income-tax Officer noticed that there was a mistake in computing the overhead expenditure. Therefore, in the opinion that income had escaped assessment for the two assessment years he issued notices to the statutory agents, under s. 148 of the E Income-tax Ac

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 23(3)

All 26 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →