SHERE PUNJAB SILK STORES, DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1690/1969Supreme Court[1973] 3 S.C.R. 7611 December 1972Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY SHERE PUNJAB SILK STORES, DELHI7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shere Punjab Silk Stores, Delhi, applied for renewal of its registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, on May 26, 1958, for the assessment year 1958-59. The relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1958. In its application, the firm stated that the previous year's income had been divided among the partners. The Income-Tax Officer rejected the application, not believing the assessee's claim of profit division. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The High Court also agreed with the lower authorities. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that for the renewal of registration of a firm under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, it is incumbent on the assessee to have divided the previous year's profits before the application for renewal is made. The Court reasoned that this interpretation is clear from a reading of Section 26A, Rules 2, 3, and 6 of the Income Tax Rules, and the prescribed forms. The Court found the language of the provisions to be plain and unambiguous, rendering the argument of potential hardship irrelevant. The Court's ratio is that compliance with the statutory requirement of prior profit division is mandatory for renewal of registration. The appeal was dismissed with costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, for the renewal of registration of a firm under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, it is incumbent on the assessee to have divided the profits of the previous year before making the application for renewal? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that even if the profits were divided after the previous year ended but before the assessment was made, as evidenced by the balance sheet, the firm was entitled to registration. The assessee also contended that a strict interpretation leading to hardship was not intended. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the division of profits must occur before the application for renewal is made, as per the statutory provisions and rules. The revenue did not explicitly present arguments on the hardship aspect but relied on the plain language of the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

16 SHERE PUNJAB SILK STORES, DELHI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME· TAX, DELHI December 11, 1972 (K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] A Incmm Tax Act (11 of 1922) s. 26 A and Income Tax R11les, 1922 B rr. 2, 3 and 6-A.pplication for renewal of registration-Division of pi .... rious year's profits-:-If incu111be11t before application is 1nade.

The assessee firm applied for renewal of its registration under s.26.A, Income Tax Act, 1922, in May 1958, stating that the income of the pre. viouo year, which ended on March 31, 1958, had been divided amon& the partners. The Department Tribunal and the High Court did not beline that the previous year's income had been divided and rejected the C application.

Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : From a reading of the section and rules 2, 3 and 6 of the In· com_e tax Rules and the forms prescribed, it is clear that in the case of an . application for renewal, it is incumbent on the part of the asse:ssee to have di•"idcd the previous year's profits before the application for renewal is made. The fact that the interpretation may cause hardship to the assessee D . is irrelevant when the language is plain. [81-0] S•

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 26A

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 26A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →