FIRM OF BHAGAT RAM MOHANLAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, MADHYA PRADESH, NAGPUR AND ANOTHER.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 139/1953Supreme Court[1956] 1 S.C.R. 14315 February 1956Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: SUDHI RANJAN DAS, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR SUPREME COURT REPORTS FIRM OF BHAGAT RAM MOHANLAL11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant firm, Bhagat Ram Mohan Lal, was constituted on 23-8-1940 and registered under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act. The partners were Bhagat Ram Mohanlal (Hindu undivided family), Richpal, and Gajadhar. Mohanlal was the karta of the HUF, which included his two brothers, Chhotelal and Bansilal. The firm made profits in the accounting years ending 1943 and 1944, assessed to excess profits tax. In the year 1944-1945, the firm incurred a loss. The Excess Profits Tax Officer, under Section 7 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, set off the previous profits against this loss and ordered a refund of Rs. 23,028/10/-. Subsequently, a partition occurred in the joint family, and the firm was reconstituted under an agreement dated 17-10-1944, with five partners: the erstwhile karta, his two brothers, and the two previous partners. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, under Section 20, initiated proceedings to set aside the refund order, citing a change in the firm's constitution.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that there was a change in the persons carrying on business within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The Court reasoned that while Mohanlal was the karta of the HUF and entered the partnership on 23-8-1940, his brothers Chhotelal and Bansilal did not automatically become partners in the firm by virtue of Hindu law. When the HUF partitioned and the firm was reconstituted on 17-10-1944, the HUF as a partner ceased to exist, and new individuals became partners. This constituted a change in the personnel of the firm. Regarding the second issue, the Court found that there was a mistake apparent on the record. It clarified that the "record" for the purposes of Section 20 is not limited to the specific order of the Excess Profits Tax Officer but includes all related proceedings, including those under the Income-tax Act, as Section 22(1) permits the use of information from income-tax proceedings for excess profits tax purposes. Therefore, the Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 20. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was a change in the persons carrying on business within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, due to the partition of the Hindu undivided family and the reconstitution of the firm on 17-10-1944. 2. Whether the order of the Excess Profits Tax Officer dated 23-12-1946, granting a refund under Section 7, was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 20 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. Assessee's Contentions: - The reconstitution of the firm did not constitute a change in persons carrying on business under Section 8(1). - The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 20 as the facts leading to the alleged mistake were not part of the Excess Profits Tax Officer's order, and records from income-tax proceedings were inadmissible. Revenue's Contentions: - The partition of the HUF and the subsequent reconstitution of the firm resulted in a change of persons carrying on business, making Section 8(1) applicable. - The Commissioner had the power under Section 20 to rectify the mistake as the facts were evident from the overall record, including income-tax proceedings, which are interdependent with excess profits tax proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26-A,Section 7,Section 8(1),Section 20,Section 2(17),Section 22(1),Section 19

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS FIRM OF BHAGAT RAM MOHANLAL v. 143 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, MADHYA PRADESH, NAGPUR AND ANOTHER. (S. R. DAs, ACTING C.J., BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), s. 26-A-Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (Act XV of 1940), ss. 7, 8(1) and 20-Registra- tion of appellant firm-Partners-Hindu undivided family consist- ing of karta and his two brothers and two others-Made profits in two accounting years and assessed to excess profits-Loss during 'the succeeding year-Profits set off against loss under s. 7 of the Excess Profits Tax Act-Partition of joint family-Appellant firm reconsti- tuted under fresh agreement-Consisting of five partners-Erstwhile karta and his two brothers and two previous partners-Whether a change in the persons carrying on business within the meaning of a. 8(1) of the ExcessProfits Tax Act-Whether previous order paying back excess profits to assessee a mistake apparent on the record within the meaning of s. 20 of the Excess Profits Tax Act.

The firm of Bhagat Ram Mohan Lal-Appella.nt-constituted on 23-8-1940 wa.s registered under s. 26-A of the Indian Income- tax Act, th

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 7

All 291 judgments and leading authorities on Section 7 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →