Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Appeal No. 37 of 1961, decided on 9th August 1962.
Recovery of tax‑Limitation‑Extension of tax Act to new area‑Proceedings for recovery of tax from pr in new area after expiry of one year from last day of ; demand‑Legality‑Indian Income‑tax Act, 1922, Ss. 42 (i)
The extension of the Income‑tax Act to a new area, e.g., Travancore‑Cochin State, would not entitle the income‑tax authorities to take action for recovery of tax, from properties in the new area after the expiry of one year from the last day of the financial year in which the demand was made. The proviso to section 42(1) referred to in section 46(7) applies only to assets which come within the taxable territories, in respect of new areas to which the Act may be extended.
G. Rama Iyer for Appellant.
K. S. Paripoornan for Respondent No. 1
This appeal is by the Income‑tax Officer, New Delhi, the first respondent in an original petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution by the first respondent in this appeal and challenged the order allowing the original petition to some extent.
The question involved is whether the appellant is entitled to proceed under section 46 of the Income‑tax Act against the assets of the first respondent for tax assessed on him‑for the year of assessment 1943‑44. Section 46 (7) provides that action under that section should be taken within an year of the last date of the financial year in which the demand was made. The demand was in the year 1943‑44 and hence action should have been taken before March 31, 1945. Proceedings, however, were started only in 1950. Reliance is placed on the proviso to section 42 (1). We do not think that the proviso or the subsection has any application. The proviso deals with a case of the assets which are, or which may at any time, come within the taxable territories. The proviso does not contemplate a case of an expansion of the taxable territories. That is what has happened here by the extension of the Act to the Travancore‑Cochin area as well. In such cases, we think, the section or the proviso is not attracted at all. We dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed:
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer