SARDAR BALDEV SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI & AJMER

CIVIL APPEAL No. 317/1955Supreme Court[1961] 1 S.C.R. 48202 September 1960Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, SYED JAFFER IMAM, A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH15 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sardar Baldev Singh, was assessed to income tax for assessment year 1944-45 by the Income-tax Officer, Lahore. After partition, he resided in Delhi. He was a shareholder in Indra Singh and Sons Ltd., Calcutta. The company declared no dividend for the year ending March 31, 1942, despite large profits. The Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, on June 11, 1947, passed an order under Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, deeming the appellant's share of undistributed income (Rs. 4,74,370) as his income for 1944-45. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer, Delhi, issued a notice under Section 34 on April 10, 1948, to reopen the assessment. The appellant filed a revised return under protest, and a fresh assessment order was made on March 25, 1949, assessing his income at Rs. 5,23,417. Appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. The present appeal is against the Tribunal's order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer, Delhi, was rightly empowered to reassess the appellant under Section 34 of the Act. It reasoned that Section 34, by its own provisions, attracted the applicability of other relevant sections of the Act, including Section 22(2). Since Section 64 was the sole provision determining the place of assessment for a notice under Section 22(2), it consequently applied to assessments under Section 34 in the absence of any contrary provision. Therefore, the assessment by the Income-tax Officer, Delhi, under Section 64(2) was valid. Regarding Section 23A, the Tribunal clarified that it created a single fiction of income arising on a specific past date for the purpose of assessment. If such income was not included in the original assessment, it was deemed to have escaped assessment, thus attracting Section 34. The Tribunal also affirmed the constitutional validity of Section 23A, stating that it fell within the legislative competence under Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, as it was designed to prevent tax evasion. The argument that Section 23A was only applicable during pending assessments was rejected, and it was held that such an order could be made even after the completion of the shareholder's assessment for the year.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-tax Officer, Delhi, could validly reassess the appellant under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, given that the original assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer, Lahore, and the appellant had relocated to Delhi post-partition. Assessee's contention: The proceedings under Section 34 could only be held in Lahore and not in India. Revenue's contention: The Income-tax Officer, Delhi, was competent to reassess the appellant under Section 34, with the venue of assessment being determined by Section 64 of the Act. 2. Whether the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, under Section 23A of the Act, deeming undistributed profits as dividend income, was valid and could attract reassessment proceedings under Section 34, even after the original assessment for the relevant year was completed. Assessee's contention: Section 23A was intended to apply only to cases where an order was made during the pendency of assessment for a year, creating a fictional income for that year. Furthermore, Section 23A(1) was beyond the legislative competence as it taxed one person on another's income. Revenue's contention: Section 23A correctly created a fiction of income distribution for assessment purposes, and if not included in the original assessment, it escaped assessment, attracting Section 34. The section was constitutionally valid as it prevented tax evasion, falling under Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23A,Section 34,Section 22,Section 64,Section 64(2),Section 64(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

z9'10 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] SARDAR BALDEV SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI & AJMER. (B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAO an<l J. C. SHAH, JJ.)

Income-tax-Assessment-Undistributed dividwd deemed to have been distributed--Reassessment as incutne escaping assessment -Venue-Constitutional validity of rnactment--Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922), ss. 23A, 34, 22, 64- Government of India Act, I935, Seventh Sch., List /, Entry 54. The appellant, at the time a resident of Lahore, was asses- sed to income-tax on an income of Rs. 49,047 for the. assessment year 1944-45 by the Income-tax Officer, Lahore. After the partition in 1947 he shifted to Delhi and resided there.

He was one of the three share-holders of a company called hclra Singh and Sons Ltd. of Calcutta, the shares of all the three share- holders being equal. The company at a meeting held Gn April 17, 1943· passed its accounts for the year ending Mar~h 31, 1942, but declared no dividends although the accounts disclosed large profits. On June Ir, 1947, the Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, passed an order under s. 23A of the Income-tax Act that the sum of Rs. 4,

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 →