SUNDARAM & COMPANY (P,) LTD. MADURAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2453/1966Supreme Court[1967] 3 S.C.R. 79825 April 1967Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI10 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Income-tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice to Sundaram & Company (P.) Ltd. for the assessment year 1956-57, seeking to reopen the assessment under Section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on the grounds of "excessive relief" granted. The assessee contended that the proceedings were unauthorized as there was no "excessive relief" and that amounts deemed distributed under Section 23A orders could not reduce the super-tax rebate under proviso 2 to Paragraph D of the Finance Act, 1956. The ITO reduced the super-tax rebate by Rs. 80,978. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that only a part of the deemed dividend could be considered for rebate reduction. The Commissioner appealed to the Tribunal, which agreed that the case did not fall under Section 34(1)(b) but upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The High Court, while agreeing that "excessive relief" grounds were unsustainable, held that proceedings could be initiated on the ground of income being "assessed at too low a rate." The High Court did not decide the assessee's plea that reassessment on the "excessive relief" notice could not be based on "assessed at too low a rate."

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the case must be remanded to the High Court to determine whether the proceedings were validly initiated on the notice issued against the assessee. The Court found that the scope of enquiry before the Tribunal was about the competence of the ITO to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1)(b) for bringing to tax excessive rebate. The High Court was bound to decide all aspects of the question of law referred to it, even if a particular aspect was not specifically argued before the Tribunal. The Court agreed with the High Court that the expression "rate" in Section 34(1)(b) does not mean a fraction of total income but is often used in the sense of a standard or measure. Therefore, an assessee escaping some provisions and failing to pay the full measure of tax is "assessed at too low a rate." However, since the High Court did not record its decision on the assessee's plea regarding the scope of reassessment based on the initial notice, and the notice itself was not on record, a remand was necessary for the High Court to determine the validity of the initiation of proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court erred in enlarging the scope of enquiry to consider the ground of income being "assessed at too low a rate" when the original notice for reopening was based on "excessive relief" and this aspect was not specifically argued before the Tribunal. - Assessee's contention: The High Court was in error in enlarging the scope of the enquiry and entering upon a question never mooted before the Tribunal. The use of the expression "assessed at too low a rate" was intended to attract the ITO's jurisdiction only when a wrong fraction was applied in determining super-tax, not when computation depended on other factors. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the expression "assessed at too low a rate" in Section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, refers only to the fraction applied in determining tax liability, or if it encompasses situations where tax computation involves other factors like rebate reduction. - Assessee's contention: The expression "assessed at too low a rate" implies that the ITO's jurisdiction is attracted only when the wrong fraction has been applied in the determination of super-tax, and not when the computation of tax depends on other factors. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34(1)(b),Section 23A,Section 66

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

SUNDARAM & COMPANY (P,) LTD. MADURAI A v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME·TAX, MADRAS April 25, 1967 (J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), ss. 34(1) (b), 66-Finance Act, 1956, proviso 2, Paragraph D-Notlce to reopen assessment on the ground of "excessive relief' but reduction of rebale on super tax on the ground "assessed at too low a rate" -Duty to enquire whether proceed- ings validly initlated-"Rate" in s. 34( 1) if means fraction of total income-Reference-.:..Duty to decide all aspects of the question of law referred even though not specifically argued before the Tribunal.

The Income-tax Officer jssued a notice to the assessee far reopening the assessment for the year 1956-57 on the ground that "excessive relief" within the meaning of s. 34(1) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 had been granted to the assessee. Rejecting the contention of ·the assessee that the income had not been the subject of "excessive relief" and therefore the proceedinJ!!' were unauthorised and that the amount deemed to have been distributed under orders under s. 23A could not be taken into con- sideration for the purpose of reducing the rebate of super-tax admis

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 23A

All 45 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →