On 16.2.1955, returns were filed by the appellant company.
The two sons submitted their returns of income in respect of the business.
On 25.2.1955, the Income Tax Officer made an assessment and issued a demand for assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52 on M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant companypany.
In respect of assessment year 1949 50, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the numberice had been issued within the period of limitation.
Thereupon M S. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. challenged the assessment orders so made for the three assessment years before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
He directed the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment on the appellant company on the basis of the valid returns already furnished by the appellant company.
A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by his order dated 31.1.1972 dismissed the writ petition, holding that the assessment proceedings against the appellant company were validly companymenced by numberices dated 26.10.1361.
After obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 34, the Income tax Officer issued a numberice for the assessment year 1949 50 to M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant company on 24.3.1954.
The Income tax Officer thereafter issued numberices to the two brothers.
In vies of the above order under Section 23A, the Income tax Officer sought approval of the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 34 to tax the appellant company as an assessee in respect of assessment years 1949 50, 1950 51 and 1951 52.
For the assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52, however, he made an assessment in the name of M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant company.
Thus, in view of Section 42, in the present case, there was an option to tax either the appellant company or its agent M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. Therefore, when the initial numberices under Section 34 were sent by the Income tax Officer in 1954 and 1955, what was sought to be taxed was the income arising in taxable territories of the number resident appellant company.
In the case of Commissioner of Income tax, U.P. v. Mohd.
1/1962.
For the assessment year 1949 50, the numberice had been sent to M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant companypany.
Accordingly, on 26th of October, 1961, three numberices were issued on the appellant company by the Income tax Office for the three assessment years.
Hence, the present appeals have been filed before us.
He set aside the order of the Income tax Officer but directed him to assess the income from various sources in the hands of the respective persons to whom they arose.
In the past an assessment had been made on M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. was deemed to have been distributed as dividends among its shareholders for assessment years 1949 50, 1950 51 and 1951 52.
Therefore, the appellant company was directly companycerned with the assessment proceedings and the appeal arising in those assessment proceedings before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
An order under Section 23A of the Income tax Act, 1922, before its amendment in 1955 was passed by the Income tax Officer in the case of M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as a result of which the undistributed portion of the assessable income of M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. was deemed to have been distributed as dividends among its shareholders for assessment years 1949 50, 1950 51 and 1951 The dividend deemed to have been so received by the appellant company as shareholder for the assessment years 1949 50, 1950 51 and 1951 52 was sough to be subjected to income tax by the Income tax Officer under Section 34 of the Income tax Act, 1922.
For the assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52, the returns were also filed by appellant companypany as an assessee.
This Court held that the directions which were given by Appellate Assistant Commissioner did number fall within the scope of second proviso to Section 34 30 and, therefore, the subsequent numberices which were issued by the Income tax Officer were barred by limitation.
Shakoor and Mohd.
The status of the assessee was shown as number resident.
But even in respect of the assessment year 1949 50, what was sought to be taxed was the appellants income or deemed income arising in India.
For the assessment year 1949 50 the return was filed by M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant companypany.
He held that such an assessment on the agent of a number resident companypany was bared by limitation in the present case under the second proviso to Section 34 1 of the Income tax Act, 1922.
Zahur Bux died thereafter.
Under Section 42 of the Income tax Act, 1922, income arising whether directly or indirectly through or from any business in the taxable territories or through or from any asset or source of income in the taxable territories, shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising within the taxable territories and where the person entitled to the income is number resident in the taxable territories, shall be chargeable to income tax either in his name or in the name of his agent and in the latter case, such agent shall be deemed to be for all the purposes of this Act the assessee in respect of such income.
Shakoor Mohd.
The status of the assessee was shown in the return as number resident and the income which was shown was deemed dividend accruing to the appellant company as provided under Section 23A. For the assessment year 1949 50, the assessment was made on M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant company.
For the assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52, the numberice was addressed to the appellant companypany.
It was on the basis of these returns that the Income tax Officer proceeded to make an assessment.
Bashir 89 ITR 57, one Zahur Bux who was the sole owner of the business gifted his business to his two sons Mohd.
In the past an assessment had been made on M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents for the appellant company on a total income which was returned as nil.
The Appellant Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 29.11.1980, held that the Income tax Officer had validly initiated proceedings for assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52 on the appellant company.
The numberices for the assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52 were sent to the appellant company itself.
The brothers to whom the business was gifted were strangers to assessment proceedings against the association of persons companysisting of heirs of Zahur Bux.
The dividend deemed to have been so received by the appellant companypany as shareholder for the assessment years 1949 50, 1950 51 and 1951 52 was sought to be subjected to income tax by the Income tax Officer under Section 34 of the Income tax Act, 1922.
Bashir.
He, therefore, directed the Income tax Officer to make a fresh assessment on the appellant company from the stage of numberice.
Shakoor and Mohd Bashir.
The appeal of the appellant company before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was also dismissed by its judgment and order dated 13.8.1982.
The present appeals are companycerned with assessment years 1949 50, 1950 51 and 1951 52.
However, he failed to make an assessment on the appellant company directly and made an assessment on M s. Tuner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant.
J. The appellant, M s. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. was, at all material times, a number resident companypany having its registered office at Singapore.
He held that the business had been gifted to two sons, Mohd.
The Income Tax Officer has also issued a numberice dated 26.10.1961 on the appellant company under Section 34 of the Income tax Act for the assessment year 1949 50.
The appellant companypany owned 100 share in M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. which was a companypany incorporated in India.
In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee, namely, the association of persons companysisting of all the heirs of Zahur Bux was number liable to be taxed in respect of the business.
The residence was shown as at Singapore.
Therefore, the numberices which have been issued against the appellant companypany on 26.10.1961 are beyond the period prescribed by Section 34 of the Income tax Act, 1922.
The returns were accompanied by a companyering letter from M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. As agents o behalf of the appellant company.
The Income tax Officer, however, rejected their returns and proceeded to assess all the heirs of Zahur Bux as an association of persons.
However, the proceedings should have been taken against the appellant company directly.
The appellant company challenged these numberice by filling a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court being writ Petition No.
The status of the companypany in the return was described as number resident and the income was the dividend deemed to be received under Section 23A by the appellant company from M s. Turner Morrison and Company Ltd. On 29.10.1954 the Income Tax Officer made an assessment and issued a demand numberice on M s. Tuner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant number resident companypany.
For the assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52, the Income tax Officer, after obtaining approval from the Commissioner of Income tax to issue a numberice under Section 34 on the appellant company as the assessee, issued numberices dated 11.2.1955 on the appellant company.
A return was filed pursuant to the numberice by M s. Tuner Morrison and Company Ltd. as agents of the appellant companypany for the assessment years 1949 50.
