BALCHAND vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SAGAR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 640/1966Supreme Court[1969] 1 S.C.R. 70419 August 1968Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI BALCHAND V. INCOME6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant was assessed for assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47. On June 24, 1959, the Income-Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for reassessment of income for the year ending March 31, 1946 (assessment year 1945-46), though the preamble mentioned both 1946-47 and 1945-46. The appellant initially filed a return for 1946-47, then a fresh return for 1945-46, admitting misunderstanding. On March 14, 1963, a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued for reassessment of income for 1946-47. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging both notices, which was dismissed by the High Court. The matter reached the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

1. The Tribunal held that while there was some negligence in the preamble of the notice dated June 24, 1959, it did not affect its validity for the assessment year 1945-46. The appellant was clearly informed in the body of the notice to file a return for the year ending March 31, 1946 (assessment year 1945-46), and the appellant himself admitted to having misunderstood the notice. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings for 1945-46 were competent. 2. The Tribunal held that the Act does not provide machinery for dealing with voluntary returns filed after an assessment for the year has been completed. Once an income has been assessed, an assessee cannot file another voluntary return to avoid a reassessment notice. The cases of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas and Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Raman Chettiar, relied upon by the appellant, were distinguished as they pertained to situations where no assessment order existed for the relevant year. The Tribunal stated that unless a reassessment notice is issued, an assessee cannot, after an assessment order is made, submit a return for a year for which they are already assessed and expect the Income-Tax Officer to assess it. The return filed on August 17, 1959, did not deprive the Income-Tax Officer of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 34 of the 1922 Act or Section 148 of the 1961 Act. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated June 24, 1959, was valid for reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1945-46, given that its preamble mentioned both 1946-47 and 1945-46, and the appellant's initial return was for 1946-47. - Assessee's contention: The notice was incompetent for 1945-46 as it primarily called for a return for 1946-47. - Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly that the notice was valid for 1945-46. 2. Whether the notice dated March 14, 1963, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was incompetent because the appellant had already submitted a return for the assessment year 1946-47, and this return had not been considered and disposed of before issuing the reassessment notice. - Assessee's contention: A notice under Section 34 of the 1922 Act or Section 148 of the 1961 Act cannot be issued so long as a previously submitted voluntary return has not been considered and disposed of. Relied on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas and Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Raman Chettiar. - Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly that the notice was competent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34,Section 148,Section 23(3),Section 22(1),Section 22(2),Section 22(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

704 BALCHAND V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SAGAR All/?USt 19. 1968 LJ .. c. SHAii AN"D v. RAMASWAMI, JI.] lncome../ax Act (II of 1922), s. 34 and Income.tax Act (43 of 1961), 148-Assessment n1ade by lncon1e-Tax Ofjicer-t·11rrher return rlie.re- after by assessee-Whether such return should be disposed of before .taking action under s. 34 of the 1922-Act or s. 148 of the 1961- Act.

The appellant \\'as assessed to pay tax on his income for the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47 under s. 23(3) of the Income-tax Act. 1922. Thereafter, on June 24, 1959, the Income-Tax Officer issued a notice of reassessment under s. 34 requiring the appellant to submit a return of his income assessable for the year ending March 31. 1946 ou the ground that the income of the appellant had escaped as<essment. The preamble to the notice hoy..·cver, referred to the assessment years 1946-47 and 1945-46. The appellant filed a return for the a'5essment year 1946-47. and \\'hen his attention y.·as drawn to the bcxiy of the notice. he file-.d a fresh return for the asses-sment year 1945-46 admitling that he had misunderstood the notice.

On ?<.-larch 14, 1963 the Income-Tax ()ffi.ccr issu

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

All 275 judgments and leading authorities on Section 34 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →