COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P. vs. M/S. MOHD. SHAKOOR MOHD. BASHIR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 337/1970Supreme Court[1973] 3 S.C.R. 8712 December 1972Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY B5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Mohd. Shakoor Mohd. Bashir, and their father Zahur Bux, were involved in a tobacco business. Initially, Allah Bux and Zahur Bux ran the business as an Association of Persons. Upon Allah Bux's death, his interest devolved to his widow, who then transferred it to Zahur Bux, making him the sole owner. In 1942, Zahur Bux gifted the tobacco business to his two sons, the respondents. After Zahur Bux's death in 1948, the respondents filed returns for the tobacco business for assessment years 1945-46 to 1956-57. The Income Tax Officer assessed all heirs of Zahur Bux as an Association of Persons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held the Association of Persons not liable for the tobacco business, finding it was gifted to the respondents. However, the AAC did not find if the respondents continued the business or earned income from it during the relevant years. The AAC directed the Income Tax Officer to assess income to the respective persons, considering the second proviso to Section 34(3). Subsequently, notices under Section 34(1)(a) were issued to the respondents.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the expression 'finding' in the second proviso to Section 34(3) refers to a finding that is absolutely necessary for the disposal of an appeal for the assessment year in question, not incidental findings. The AAC's finding that the Association of Persons was not liable for the tobacco business was essential. However, the finding that the business was gifted in 1942 was considered incidental and did not necessarily mean the respondents continued to own it during the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the High Court was correct in holding that the AAC did not make a necessary finding regarding the respondents' ownership during those years. Regarding 'directions', the Court affirmed that such directions must fall under Section 31(3)(b), (c), or (e), or Section 31(4). The Revenue conceded that the AAC's direction did not fit these categories. Consequently, the direction was not within the scope of the second proviso to Section 34(3). The Court also clarified that the Tribunal's conclusion on the scope of the AAC's finding was a matter of law, not fact, allowing for High Court interference. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had given a 'finding' as contemplated by the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which would allow for the issuance of notices under Section 34(1)(a) beyond the prescribed time limit. 2. Whether the AAC had given a 'direction' as contemplated under the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act, which would permit the Income Tax Officer to take action against the assessee. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the High Court was correct in holding that the notices issued under Section 34(1)(a) were barred by time. They contended that the AAC's findings and directions did not fall within the scope of the second proviso to Section 34(3). Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the notices issued under Section 34(1)(a) were not barred by time due to the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act. They argued that the AAC's findings and directions were sufficient to invoke this proviso.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34(3),Section 34(1)(a),Section 31(3)(b),Section 31(3)(c),Section 31(3)(e),Section 31(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c D E F G H COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P. v. M/S. MOHD. SHAKOOR MOHD. BASHIR December 12, 1972 (K. S. HEGDE AND i>. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.)

Indian Income Tax A.ct, 1922, Section 34(3)-Second Provi.ro-Per- so11s originally carrying on tobacco and otlier business as.u1ed in the status of association of persons-On devolution, tobacco business subsequently gifted to appellants-A.ppellate Assistant Commissioner holding that assessee not liable to be taxed in respect of tobacco business-No finding that appellants were continuing tobacco buslntss I~ their own name or in respect of ani income earned In i~-Direction to Income Tax Officer ro assess income bearing i11 mind second proviso to S. 34(3)-Not/ces under S. 34(1)(a) whether barred by time-Mtllning of expression• 'fi11c/ing' and 'direction' in second prov/Jo to S. 34(3). A and Z were carrying on busineu at various places, includin11 tobacco business at Mauranipur and they were assessed in the statllfl of Association of persons. In 1938 A died leiwin11 his widow as his only heir.

She transferred her interest in •favour of Z, who then became the sole owner of the entire business. Z aifted the tobacco bus

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 34(3)

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 34(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →