TMI Blog1953 (8) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates to the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49, i.e., to the accounting years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The ground on which the liquidator rejected the claim was that the books of the company only showed a small profit of about Rs. 6,000 for the assessment year 1947-48 and a loss in the following year, and that the Income-tax assessments have not been properly contested. He relied on the decision in Income-tax Officer, Lucknow v. Lucknow Sugar Works Ltd., a decision by Srivastava J. and the decision of the Full Bench of Habries C.J., Abdul Rashid and Beckett JJ. in Governor-General in Council through Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, N.W.F. and Delhi Provinces, Lahore v. Sargodha Trading Co. Ltd. Before discussing these cases the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found by the liquidator in the liquidation proceedings that the company had sustained a loss for the assessment year in question. Unfortunately in the judgment, although some account is given of the proceedings before the Income-tax authorities, there is no mention of the date on which the company was ordered to be wound up, and it is therefore not possible to say what the decision of the learned Judge would have been if the assessment years were long before the order of winding up and in fact the company's appeal against the assessment had been dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner two years before the winding up order. In the Lahore case all that was held by the Full Bench was that income-tax which does not become due and pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iquidation proceedings unless there is reason to think that the assessment is vitiated by fraud. This was a case in which although all the dates are not given in the judgment it is clear that the winding up order of the company followed fairly soon after the assessment in question which was for the year 1934-35 and the company was wound up on the 15th of October, 1935. The present case for not re-opening the assessments is even stronger. In the circumstances I consider that the claim of the Income-tax Officer was wrongly rejected by the liquidator and I accordingly order him to recognize the claim of the Income-tax Officer for Rs. 16,574-1-6 shown in the third part of List A. As I understand that the assets of the company are at present n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
