COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA, PATNA vs. M/S. KIRKEND COAL COMPANY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2456/1966Supreme Court[1969] 3 S.C.R. 98312 March 1969Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, A.N. GROVER A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent, a firm, was assessed for the assessment year 1948-49, and a penalty of Rs. 60,000 was imposed under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for undisclosed receipts. The firm's constitution changed over time, with the business continuing. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal rejected the firm's appeals. The High Court, in a reference, held that the penalty could only be legally imposed on the original firm constituted in the account year relevant to 1948-49, not on the new firm constituted in 1952. Both the Tribunal and the High Court based their decisions on the assumption that Section 44 of the Act was the source of the Income-tax Officer's power to impose the penalty.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applies only to cases where a business has been discontinued, not to cases of reconstitution or succession to a business. Cases of reconstitution or succession are covered by Sections 26(1) and (2). The Tribunal and the High Court erred in relying on Section 44. The Court also noted that 'assessment' in Chapter IV includes penalty proceedings, and Section 28 applies to firms. If a firm is reconstituted, the Income-tax Officer proceeds against the firm. If the business is discontinued, penalty is imposed on the partners. However, the Supreme Court could not delve into whether penalty was leviable under Sections 26 and 28 because the question was not raised or argued before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, upon the respondent firm as constituted at the time of the levy of penalty was legal and valid? Assessee's contention (implied through High Court's reasoning): The penalty was levied on a reconstituted firm, and the original firm had ceased to exist in its original constitution. The High Court's finding suggests the penalty should have been levied on the original firm. Revenue's contention (implied through appeal): The revenue likely argued that the penalty was validly imposed on the firm continuing the business, irrespective of its reconstitution, and that the High Court erred in restricting it to the original firm. The Supreme Court's analysis suggests the revenue's argument would have focused on the applicability of Sections 26 and 28, rather than Section 44.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26,Section 28,Section 44,Section 66

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

98~ A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA, PATNA B c D E F G H v. MIS. KIRKEND COAJ, COMPANY March 12, 1969 [J. C. SHAH A~D A. N. GROVER, JJ.) Indian Jnrome-tax Act, 1922, ss. 26, 28, 44 and 66-Pena/ty leviah/e on firn: for assess1nent year 194849-Firin reconstituted in later years but business not discontinued-Penalt,v in respect of 1948-49 whether /eviable on reconstituted firm-Sect.ion 44 not apjJlicable to such Clllls- Applicahility of ss. 26 and 28-Question not rc.·ised before Tribunal can- not he raised in reference under s.

66.

The respondent was a firm on which penalty under s. 28(1)(c) ot the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was imposed by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment year 1948-49. At the time when the penalty was imposed the cpnstitution of the firm had changed though the same business was continued by the reconstituted firm. The appeals filed by the respondent before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tri- bunal were rejected. In reference the High Court held that penalty could be legally imposed upon the original firm constituted in the account year relevant to the assessment year 194849 and not upon the new

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 26

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 26 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →