1,00,189/ Mr. Robert J. Sas Rs.
1,09,8591 Mr. Paul Victor Hermans Rs.
Thereafter the return of the income was submitted and the assessment was companypleted in regard to the shareholders.
Appeals were taken first to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.138 to 138 of 1962.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 19, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
1,09,859/ The Income tax Officer issued numberices under s. 34 of the Act and the numberices were served on the respective respondents on April 1, 1954.
This plea was accepted by the Tribunal and at the instance of the Commissioner of Income tax a case was stated to the High Court under s. 66 1 of the Act and the following two questions were referred to it Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case it was necessary for the Incometax Officer to initiate action under section 34 of the Indian Income tax Act in order to tax the deemed income distributed by virtue of the order under section 23A 1 of the Act made in the cage of the A.C.E.C. Private India Ltd. If the answer to question No.
was in accordance with that provision, deemed to have been divided amongst the shareholders.
Mr. Paul Rouffart Rs.
74 of 1957.
Both the questions were answered in the affirmative and against the Commissioner of Income tax.
Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
The second question was reframed by the High Court as follows If the answer to question No.
Against that judgment and order he has companye in appeal to this companyrt by special leave.
Gopalakrishnan, for the Intervener.
The accounting year is the calendar year ending, December 31, 1948, and the relevant assessment year 1949 50.
On March 29 1954, the Income tax Officer passed an order under s. 23A 1 , of the Income tax Act, hereinafter termed the Act Whereby the income of the Company.
November 16.
In view of the decision of this companyrt in Sardar Baldev Singh Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi Ajmer 1 and Commissioner of Income tax V. Navinchandra Mafatlal 2 in which it was held that an assessment cannot be made under s.23A of the Act because that section does number make provision for an assessment to be made and assessment can only be made under s. 34 of the Act, the first question numberlonger survives for decision and was rightly number argued before us.
1 is in the affirmative whether the numberice served on April 1, 1954 was out of time ?
One of the points taken before the Tribunal was that the Income tax Officer had numberjurisdiction to take proceedings as the numberices were served on the assessee respondents beyond the period of four years allowed under s 34 1 b of the Act.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents.
1 is in the affirmative whether having regard to the observations of their lordships in Navin chandra Mafatlal v. Commissioner of Income tax,, Bombay City 1 1955 27 I.T.R. 245 the numberice, served on April 1, 1954 was out of time?
Although the, companypany had earned large profits during the year 1947 it did number declare any dividend at the shareholders meeting held on December 4, 1948.
By that order the following dividends were deemed to have been distributed amongst the three shareholders, each a respondent in one of the appeals.
The appellant in all the three appeals is the Commissioner of Income Tax but in each of the appeals the respondent is different 1.
J. Kolah, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
C., one of the three shareholders of a private limited companypany A.C.E.C. Private India Limited which was carrying on business in India and made profits during the calendar year 1947.
The judgment of the Court, was delivered by KAPUR J.These three appeals by special leave are brought against the judgment and order of the High Court Bombay.
