COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH vs. M/S. BHIKAJI DADABHAI & CO.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 434/1960Supreme Court[1961] 3 S.C.R. 92322 February 1961Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Income-tax Officer retained the power to impose a penalty under Section 40(1) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment year preceding the repeal of the Act. This was because Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, saved the operation of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act for the levy, assessment, and collection of income-tax and super-tax for periods prior to April 1, 1950, for which liability could not be imposed under the Indian Income-tax Act. The Court reasoned that 'assessment' in this context includes the entire procedure for imposing liability, including penalties, which are considered an additional tax. Therefore, proceedings for imposing penalty could be continued after the enactment of Section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950. The Court also held that an appeal against an order of the Income-tax Officer, even on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not conditional on the Income-tax Officer's competence to pass the original order. As an appellate authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the power to examine the soundness of the Income-tax Officer's conclusions on fact, law, and jurisdiction. Consequently, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was not a nullity. The appeal was allowed, and the first question was answered in the affirmative.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co., owned an oil mill in the former State of Hyderabad. For the assessment year Fasli 1357 (1946-47), the Income-tax Officer assessed their total income at Rs. 1,63,131/-, finding their books unreliable. On December 22, 1949, a notice was issued under Section 40 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act for penalty. By an order dated October 31, 1951, a penalty of Rs. 42,000/- was levied. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the Hyderabad Income-tax Act ceased to have effect from April 1, 1950, due to Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, and thus the penalty order was without jurisdiction. The High Court, on reference, answered that the Income-tax Officer had no power to impose penalty on October 31, 1951, but the assessee had a right to appeal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on October 31, 1951, the Income-tax Officer had the power to impose a penalty under Section 40(1) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1357 Fasli, given that the Hyderabad Income-tax Act ceased to have effect from April 1, 1950, by virtue of Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950? (Question of law) 2. Whether the assessee had a right to appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer imposing the penalty? 3. If the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, whether his order was a nullity, rendering the Income-tax Officer's order erroneous? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Hyderabad Income-tax Act ceased to have effect from April 1, 1950, and the power to impose penalty under Section 40 was not saved by Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty, and consequently, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was a nullity. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, saved the operation of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act for the purposes of levy, assessment, and collection of income-tax for periods prior to April 1, 1950. They argued that penalty is an additional tax and its imposition was a part of the assessment proceedings that were saved. The revenue also argued that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to hear appeals, even if the Income-tax Officer's initial order was questionable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40,Section 13,Section 42(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 24 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

... 3S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH v. M/S. BHIKAJI DADABHAI & CO. 923 (J. L. KAPUR, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)

Income-tax-Assessment proceedings pending-Hyderabad Inc 1 odme-tax Act repealed-Penalty, whether. an additional tax-If '· .. t cou be imposed-Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Juri iction-- l Assessment, meaning of-Hyderabad Income-tax Act, s. 40-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (XI of r922)-Finance Act, r950 (XXV of I950), s, IJ.

The Income-tax Officer found that the respondents' books of accounts were unreliable and after assessing income for Fasli year 1357, corresponding to the year 1946-47, issued notice to the respondents on December 22, 1949, under s. 40 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act to show cause why penalty should not be levied in addition to the tax and by an order dated October 31, 1951, directed payment of the said penalty. The State of Hyderabad merged with the Indian Union during the pendency of the pro- ceedings before the Income-tax Officer and by s. 13 ot the Finance Act, 1950, the Hyderabad Income-tax Act ceased to have effect from April I, 1950, but the operation of that Act in

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 40

All 64 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →