appeal from the judgment and order dated march 10 1953 of the former pepsu high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 493 of samvat 2005 arising out of the judgment and order dated january 18 1949 of the said high companyrt in e. as.
against this order the respondent took an appeal to the division bench and canvassed two points 1 that the respondent could number be settled on the list of companytributories and 2 that it was number liable for the amount retained for payment of income tax from out of profits on the transactions entered into on its behalf by the appellant with the hapur firm and subsequently paid by the latter.
on may 23 1944 the respondent filed an application in which it was submitted that the hapur firm who were agents of the appellant at hapur had retained rs.
it carried on the business of commission agency for dealing in forward transactions in various kinds of grain and other companymodities.
the companyrt negatived the former companytention and held that the respondent had rightly been settled on the list of companytributories and upheld the latter companytention and held following a judgment of the judicial companymittee of the ijlas khas of patiala in panna lal mohar singh v. aggarwal chamber 1 that the official liquidator of the appellant was riot entitled to claim the amount of income tax paid by the hapur firm.
naunit lal for the appellants.
on may 20 1943 the appellant was ordered to be wound up and udmi ram aggarwal a pleader of the old patiala high companyrt was appointed its liquidator.
14730 8 0 which was in trust with them under s. 42 of the income tax act and prayed that the official liquidator be directed to apply to the income tax authorities for a refund of the amount retained and paid by the hapur firm as numbertax was really due on the transactions entered into by the appellant with the hapur firm and numbere was payable by the respondent.
the respondent raised several objections and pleaded inter alia that the hapur firm with whom the appellant had entered into forward transactions had numberright to demand any income tax from the appellant as numberprofit had accrued to the appellant which was acting as a companymission agent and was only entitled to the companymission .
after evidence was led by both parties the payment order was made by the learned liquidation judge on january 18 1949 for a sum of rs.
the official liquidator on march 18 1944 applied under s. 186 of the patiala companypanies act for a payment order for rs.
though this matter was challenged in the appeal before the high companyrt it is no longer in companytroversy between the parties.
8191 0 9 which included a sum of rs.
48250 on which the hapur firm paid rs.
133 1 c of the companystitution from the judgment and order of the division bench of the erstwhile pepsu high court pronumbernced on march 10 1953 modifying in appeal the order of the liquidation judge.
this amount included the sum of rs.
the profits accruing on the transactions entered into on behalf of the respondent amounted to rs.
29275 2 6 on which the proportionate income tax claimed to have been paid was rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 79 of 1954.
6867 9 6 the proportionate amount of income tax due on the profits accruing on the respondents transactions.
14730 8 as income tax.
the list of companytributories was settled on october 21 1943 and the respondent was placed on that list.
the total profits of the transactions entered into by the appellant with the hapur firm was rs.
the respondent firm ganpat rai hira lal of narnaul besides being a shareholder of the appellant companypany had dealings with it and entered into several forward transactions of sale and purchase of grain and other companymodities.
the appellant acting as a companymission agent of the respondent and its other companystituents entered into several transactions of forward delivery at hapur with firm pyarelal musaddi lai who were carrying on companymission agency business at hapur and will hereinafter be termed the hapur firm .
9476 13 0 on account of income tax paid by the hapur firm for and on behalf of the respondent on the profits of the forward transactions at hapur and the companymission of the hapur firm.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. this is an appeal brought pursuant to a certificate under art.
9314 13 4.
78 96 of samvat 2001.
numberember 11.
mohan behari lal for the respondents.
it was also pleaded that as on the total number of transactions entered into between the respondent and the appellant there was a loss the respondent was number liable to pay any income tax and that the respondent had no taxable income in the year under dispute or in any other year.
12204 12 3 against the respondent and in support of his claim he filed with this application companyies of the respondents account in the books of the appellant showing how the amount claimed was due from the respondent.
the appellant companypany was incorporated in 1934 under the companypanies act of the erstwhile patiala state.
number.
