INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KOLAR AND ANOTHER vs. SEGHU BUCHIAH SETTY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 221/1963Supreme Court[1964] 7 S.C.R. 14811 March 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH26 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Seghu Buchiah Setty, was assessed for income tax for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. Notices of demand were issued under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Upon failure to pay, certificates were issued under Section 46(2) to the Collector for recovery. The assessee appealed, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the assessed income for both years. The Income-tax Officer informed the assessee of the reduced tax liability without issuing fresh notices of demand. The assessee then applied to the High Court of Mysore to quash the recovery proceedings, arguing they were illegal due to the absence of fresh notices. The High Court agreed, holding that fresh notices were necessary after the reduction in assessment.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

By a majority decision (Justices Sarkar and Hidayatullah), the Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its decision. Justice Sarkar reasoned that when an Income-tax Officer's order is revised in appeal, the default based on the original order and all consequential proceedings are superseded. Fresh proceedings must be initiated to realize the dues as determined by the revised order. Justice Hidayatullah, referring to Section 29, stated that if an appellate order reduces the tax amount, the Income-tax Officer must inform the assessee of the reduced amount, make a fresh demand, and provide an opportunity to pay before treating the assessee as a defaulter. Justice Shah, in his dissenting opinion, held that in the absence of a statutory obligation to issue successive notices, the original notices of demand under Section 29 could be enforced under Section 46, even after an appeal, with adjustments for the reduced amount. The majority dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's order quashing the recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, after an order of assessment is revised in appeal by reducing the taxable income, the Income-tax Officer is required to issue a fresh notice of demand under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, before initiating recovery proceedings for the reduced amount. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the revision of the assessment order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner superseded the original orders, notices of demand, and certificates. Consequently, the recovery proceedings based on the original demand became ineffective, and the Income-tax Officer was obligated to issue a new notice of demand and initiate fresh steps for realization of the tax due under the appellate orders. Revenue's contention: The revenue authorities contended that the Act does not provide for the supersession of earlier notices of demand upon modification of an assessment order in appeal, and therefore, the original notices and subsequent recovery proceedings remain valid, subject to adjustment of the amount to be recovered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 29,Section 45,Section 46(2),Section 46(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1964 March 11 148 SUPREl\JE COURT REPORTS [1964} INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KOLAR AND ANOTHER v. SEGHU BUCHIAH SETTY ' (A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

Inco'me-iax-Order' of assessment revised in appea!- Recovery of tax-Proceeding& based on original order of assess. ment-Continuaiion, witholit fresh notice of demand-·-Lega!iiu -Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922). ss. 29, 45, 4. 6. The respondent was assessed to income-tax for the years. 1953-54 and 1954-55 on estimatled incomes of Rs. 61,000/- and Rs. 1,21,000/- respectively and notices of demand under s. 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act; 1922, were served on him by the Income-tax Officer for the tax due. On the respondent failing to comply with the notices of demand within the period specified, the Income-tax Officer issued certificates under s. 46(2) of the Act and sent them to the Collector for recovery of the tax, treating the respondent as in default. In appeals filed by the respondent against the orders of assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the income assess<cd for the year 1953-54 to Rs. 28,000 and for the year 1954-55 to Rs. 46,000. The Income-tax Officer did not

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 29

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 29 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →