SASHI PRASAD BAROOAH vs. THE AGRICULTURE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG, ASSAM & ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 245/1972Supreme Court[1977] 2 S.C.R. 64519 January 1977Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: HANS RAJ KHANNA, R.S. SARKARIA J9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sashi Prasad Barooah, was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family assessed to agricultural income-tax on income from tea estates. The assessee claimed that the family had disrupted on January 1, 1945, and he became the exclusive owner of some tea estates. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer rejected this plea. The assessee's petition challenging the validity of Rule 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, was dismissed by the High Court. The assessment years in question were 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1955-56. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued notices for furnishing returns and proposed summary assessment, ultimately assessing the appellant for the year 1946-47.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Rule 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, is intra vires and valid. The Court reasoned that the language of Rule 23 clearly indicates that in the absence of an order apportioning liability on the basis of partition, a Hindu undivided family hitherto assessed as undivided or joint shall be deemed to continue as such for the purposes of the Act. The charging section (Section 3) creates the liability for tax, and Rule 23 deals with the procedural aspect of determining the person to be assessed. This is a matter of detail to carry out the purposes of the Act, and the State Government was within its competence to make such a rule under Section 50(1). The Court noted that a similar provision exists in Section 171(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court also referred to established legal principles that legislatures can delegate the determination of details for the working of taxation laws to the executive, citing cases like Pt. Banarsi Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Powell v. Appollo Candle Company Limited, and Syed Mohamed & Co. v. The State of Madras. Therefore, the High Court's judgment upholding the validity of Rule 23 and dismissing the assessee's petitions was affirmed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Rule 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, which states that a Hindu undivided family hitherto assessed as undivided or joint shall be deemed to continue as such in the absence of an order apportioning liability on partition, is ultra vires the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939. Assessee's contentions: (i) After the disruption of the family, no assessment order could be made under Rule 23 in respect of such a disrupted family. (ii) The State Government had no power to make a rule for the assessment of a Hindu undivided family after a partition had taken place. Revenue's contentions: (i) Rule 23 is a valid rule made to carry out the purposes of the Act and deals with the procedural aspect of who should be assessed. (ii) The State Government was within its competence to make the rule under Section 50 of the Act. The fact that the Income-tax Act has a statutory provision for this while this Act relies on rules does not make a material difference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50,Section 3,Section 19,Section 30,Section 171

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

J 645 SASHI PRASAD BAROOAH v. THE AGRICULTURE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG, ASSAM & ORS.

January 19, 1977 (H. R. KHANNA AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] Assam A;;ric11/t11ral Income Tax Rules, 193,9 r. 23-Scope oj- Rule if ultra vi res.

Rule 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939 provides that where an order apportioning the liability to the tax on the basis of partition has not been passed in respect of a Hindu undivided family hithert0: assessed as undivided or joint, such family shall be deemed, to continue to be a Hindu undivided or joint family.

The assessee was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family,_which was assessed to agricultural income-tax in respect of income derived from the manufacture and sale of tea.

The assessee contended before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that, since there was disruption of the Hindu undivided family, no agri- cultural income-tax was payable exen though agricultural income had arisen from tea estates. This plea was rejected.

His petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugning the validity of r. 23 had been dismissed by the High Court.

Jn appeal to this Court it was contended that (i) after the dissolutio

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 50

All 386 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →