Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 5 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No.
Against the order passed by the High Court, with certificate under s. 66A 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, this appeal is preferred.
The High Court was of the view that the principle of the decisions in Sir Homi Mehtas Executors case and in Rogers Co. v. Commissoner of Income tax, Bombay City 11 2 , did number apply to the facts of the present case, since at all material times there were in existence two companyporations which were distinct and the transfer by one companyporation of its assets to another cannot be deemed to be a transfer to self that the transaction by which the appellant Company transferred its assets to Messrs. Phelps Co. Ltd. was a transaction of sale, and the doctrine of lifting the veil of companyporate personality had application only to a limited class of cases, and the case of the appellants companyld number be brought within that class and since the two companypanies companytinued to exist side by side for many years after the appellant Company had transferred its assets to Messrs Phelps Co. Ltd., two different Companies which carried on business simultaneously companyld number be regarded as one entity.
On March 21, 1952 under an order made under s. 11 4 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, the name of the Company was altered to Messrs Associated Clothiers Ltd. On the same day a companypany styled Messrs. Phelps Co. Ltd. was incorporated.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. M s. Phelps Company Ltd. was registered as a private limited companypany on September 30, 1939 to carry on the business of Clothiers and Tailors.
3 of 1958.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the balance sheet of the appellant Company dated March 31, 1953 the building was valued at Rs.
969 of 1965.
T. Desai, A. N. Kripal and R. N. Sachthey, for the res pondent.
57,011/ .
The High Court answered the question in the negative.
S. Shukla, for the appellant.
Counsel urged that the observations made by the High Court that Messrs. Phelps Co. Ltd. and the appellant Company companytinued to exist side by side as two separate limited Companies and carried on business simultaneously for, more than ten years is borne out by numberevidence on the record.
In this appeal with certificate, the appellant Company companytends that the High Court gravely erred in recording its opinion on the question submitted, relying on evidence which was never placed before the Income tax Officer or the Tribunal.
