THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. M/S. FILMISTAN LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 451/1960Supreme Court[1961] 3 S.C.R. 89321 February 1961Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Filmistan Ltd., was assessed for the assessment year 1949-50. A demand notice was served for Rs. 1,80,616/14/-, payable by July 17, 1954. The assessee was allowed to pay by instalments, with the last instalment of Rs. 30,646/14/- due by March 20, 1955. Due to default in this last instalment, the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 46(1) on March 31, 1955. The assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on April 20, 1955. However, the last instalment was paid on May 16, 1955, after the appeal was filed and after the prescribed period for presenting the appeal had expired. The Income-tax Officer raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not competent due to the non-payment of tax.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is conferred by Section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and is not taken away by Section 30(2); only the remedy is barred. The Tribunal reasoned that the expression 'no appeal shall lie' in the proviso to Section 30(2) means that the appeal cannot be held to be properly filed until the tax is paid, not that no memorandum of appeal can be presented. The effect of the proviso to Section 30(1) read with sub-section (2) is that the appeal will be deemed to be filed on the date when the tax due is paid. Therefore, the appeal filed on April 20, 1955, became a proper appeal on May 16, 1955, when the last instalment was paid. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was then required to decide whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's and High Court's reasoning.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on April 20, 1955, became a proper and complete appeal, even though the tax was paid after the period of limitation had expired, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have decided the question of condonation of delay? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 30(1) and 30(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922). Assessee's contention: The right of appeal is conferred by Section 30(1) and is not destroyed by Section 30(2); only the remedy is barred. The appeal became good as soon as the arrears of tax were paid, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have considered condonation of delay. Revenue's contention: The appeal was not competent because the tax had not been paid by the due date, and therefore, the memorandum of appeal could not be validly presented or considered properly filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 30,Section 30(1),Section 30(2),Section 46(1),Section 29,Section 66A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

,, 3 S.U.R. SUl'RElllE COCRT HEPOHTS 893 Harida5 .J!Ondal v. favour of borrowers an'.! against rapacious money- lenders. I find myself in such complete agreement with the judgment impugned, that I do not find it necessary to cover the same ground.

Anath ,,Vath 1.llittra I .would, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs. BY COURT.-In view of the majority judgment of the Court, this appeal will be allowed and Mittra's Suit No. 105 of 1947 dismissed with costs throughout. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY v. M/s. FILMISTAN LTD. (J. L. l(APUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c:SHAH, JJ.) focome-tax-J'cnalty for failure to pay tax-Appeal within time -Tax due paid after the period of Limitation--Appral if barred- Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (II of r922), ss. 30, sub-ss. (I) and (2), 46(I).

Against an order imposing penalty under s. 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act on account of failure to pay an instalment of Income-tax, an appeal was preferred. Though the memoran- dum of appeal was presented within the period of limitation, the tax was paid after the period of limitation prescribed for presenting the appeal had expired.

Held, that the expression "t-<o appeal sh

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 30

All 153 judgments and leading authorities on Section 30 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →