70,895/ being the share of the assessees income which arose in its partnership with the Indian Steel Syndicate as up to November 30, 1950 and March 31, 1951, and that the income accrued after the accounting year of the assessee which ended on September 30, 1950.
Against these orders the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The assessee entered into a partnership on April 20, 1950 with a firm called The India Steel Syndicate.
The shares of profit of the assessee from this firm which was registered under s. 26 A of the Act as up to November 30, 1950 and upto March 31, 1951 totalling Rs.
60,350 and Rs.
As the assessee had number declared any dividend at its Annual General Meetings during either of the aforesaid two years or within six months thereafter, the Income Tax Officer issued numberices to the assessee to show cause why an order under s. 23 A 1 of the Act should number be passed for the two years.
After deduction of the taxes payable, the balance was Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 18, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
By its judgment dated September 18, 1962, the High Court an swered the question in so far as it pertained to assessment year 1950 51 in the affirmative and in so far as it pertained to assessment year 1951 52 in the negative and against the appellant.
There was a reconstitution of this firm on December 1, 1950.
Its share capital companysists of 50,000 shares subscribed and paid up.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, T. A. Ramachandran and N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
70,895/ were included in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1951 52.
A further ground was taken in the appeal that the order under s. 23 A was unwarranted so far as assessment year 1950 51 was companycerned inasmuch as the assessable profits included a sum of Rs.
17 of1967.
During the assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52, for which the previous years ended on September 30, 1949 and September 30, 1950, the, Income Tax Officer determined the assessable income of the assessee at Rs.
Radhey Lal Aggarwal, Bishambar Lal and H. K. Puri, for the respondent.
The shares of the assessee are number quoted on the Stock Exchange any where in India.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The assessee, however, companytended that s. 23 A was number applicable inasmuch as the public were substantially interested within the meaning of the Explanation appended to, the third proviso to s. 23 A l .
At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal stated a case to the High Court under s. 66 1 of the Act on the following question of law Whether the order passed against the assessee for assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52 under section 13 A are justified and valid ?
34 of 1961 whereby the High Court held that the order passed against the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the assessee under s. 23A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 hereinafter referred to as the Act was number justified and valid for the assessment year 1951 52.
Out of the remaining 2,507 shares, 2,500 shares were held by another private limited companypany incorporated in India and having its registered office in New Delhi and the remaining 7 shares were held by seven individuals.
35,834 in the first year and Rs, 53,103 in the second year.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals and his order was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal on June 28, 1959 for both the assessment years.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, on behalf of the Commissioner of Income tax against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 18, 1962 in Income Tax Reference No.
Out of these shares, 47,493 are held by Shree Raghunath Investment Trust Ltd., a companypany incorporated as a private companypany under the laws of Jammu and Kashmir hereinafter referred to as The Jammu Co. and having its registered office there.
The assessee is a public, limited companypany registered under the Indian Companies Act.
34 of 1961.
93,884 respectively.
Overruling this companytention the Income Tax Officer made an order under s. 23 A against the assessee in respect of the undistributed profits for the said two years.
