TMI Blog1958 (8) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1947-48 and 1948-49 at ₹ 70,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- respectively in the hands of the Association. The President of the Association filed an appeal which was ultimately allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, and the assessments were set aside. On 23-4-1955, the Income-tax Officer made fresh assessments of the income in the hands of the Association. It is alleged that no notice of those proceedings was given to the ten petitioners, nor were the assessment orders dated 23-4-1955, communicated to them. It seems that the communication was sent to the President of the Association on whom was also served the notice during the time that the proceedings were being taken. The members of the Association got knowledge of the order of assessment dated 23-4-1955, when notices of demand dated 7-11-1955, were served on them. Thereupon they presented writ petition challenging these two assessment orders. 2. Two of the grounds, on which those two orders were challenged and which were strenuously argued before us by learned counsel for the petitioners, did not appeal to us. The first ground was that, in fact, there was no association of persons within the meaning of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur High Court in that case that in fact, no Association at all of the semi-wholesalers, who had come up to the Court, had been formed. The semi-wholesalers merely had to nominate a common agent known as the nominee. It was he who had to receive the quota on behalf of the semi-wholesalers and distribute it to the retailers. The facts do not disclose that the semi-wholesalers had to contribute any capital and provide it for running a business by an association of themselves apart from their individual businesses as semi-wholesalers. In fact, the learned Judges, who decided that case, clearly held: We do not find any evidence of any agreement either to carry on the business or to share the profits . The facts of the case before us are entirely different. In this case, as we have indicated earlier, the petitioners, with others did form an association of persons and the business was carried on by that association quite apart and distinct from the business of each of its members. They elected a President and a Secretary. There was separate capital of the association. Consequently, the views expressed by the Nagpur High Court in that case are not at all applicable to the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot to join the group at all. The facts of that case thus differ from the facts before us and that decision cannot be applicable to the present case. In the case before us, the facts clearly disclose that an association of persons with a separate capital for the purpose of carrying on a business and sharing the profits of that business was formed by these ten petitioners with some others and, consequently, this ground taken in the petition must fail. 3. The second ground, which we are not inclined to accept, is that this association of persons ceased to function from 6-1-1948, and thereafter there could be no assessment of tax on the income of this association of persons. It is significant that there is no assertion that the association of persons itself ceased to exist after 6-1-1948. All that is asserted is that it ceased to carry on its business. On the other hand, there are indications that the association continued to exist, because the petitioners, in their affidavit, have themselves stated that the President of the association continued. It was alleged by the petitioners that they had deposited certain moneys with the President for discharging the income-tax liability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge is to be levied on an income only once. Whether it is to be charged in the hands of one person or another can certainly be determined under Section 3 and other relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. Section 3 is clear enough to indicate that the same income cannot be charged repeatedly in the hands of different persons or in the hands of the same person. In fact, when examining this argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party, we put a question whether he could point out any specific provision in the Income-tax Act under which there was a bar to the income of one individual for one previous year being repeatedly assessed and charged to tax. He was unable to point out any and we had to fall back on Section 3 of the Act reading in it a provision which enables the Income-tax Department to charge tax only once on the income and not more than once. In the present case, this income of the Association has already been charged in the hands of the members of the Association individually and the assessment and the charge of tax under that assessment have not yet been set aside. In fact those orders of assessment have not been challenged. The position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Association and, once it has been assessed and charged to tax and that assessment remains a valid assessment, there can be no fresh assessment of tax on that income in the hands of the Association, The orders of 23-4-1956, assessing this income in the hands of the Association and charging tax on it were clearly without jurisdiction. 5. We may also take notice of an argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party that this was not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the Income-tax Act is a self-contained statute providing remedies for orders passed under that Act and the petitioners should nave sought their remedy under the Act itself. Learned counsel principally relied on a decision of the Punjab High Court, In re Lal Lachhman Dass Nayar, (1952) 22 ITR 418: (AIR 1953 Punj 55). The Punjab High Court, in that case, was dealing with the question whether a writ of certiorari could issue in respect of proceedings taken by an Income-tax Officer under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act and, when summarising its conclusions at about the end of the judgment, one of the learned Judges of that Court held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
