9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time, the Cochin Excess Profits Tax Act 1117 M.E. (II of 1117 M.E.) (1941 A.D.) and Cochin Income-tax Act, 1117 M. E. (VI of 1117 M.E.) were in force in the Cochin State. Cochin later became part of the State of Travancore-Cochin. On the commencement of the Constitution, the latter State became a Part B State in the Union of India. The Government of India on May 20, 1951, issued a notification giving certain terms to assessees if they disclosed their hidden income or income which had escaped taxation. We are not concerned with the exact concessions given but only with the question whether this notification was also concerned with the assessment under the Excess Profits Tax-Act. Our attention was invited by the plaintiffs to the opening sentence of the notification, which is as follows : " Detailed measures for launching a special drive for the clearance of arrears of income-tax have now been finalised by the Government of India." It was also pointed out that only Income-tax Officers were mentioned in various parts of the notification and no reference was made to Excess Profits Tax Officers. In pursuance of this notification, A. N. Padmanabha Shenoi made two statements dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents already made to the extent of Rs. 71,851-9-0, Rs. 57,872-10-0, was payable as balance excess profits tax. A. N. Padmanabha Shenoi replied on August 19, 1953, requesting that they may be permitted to pay the said amount of Rs. 57,872-1 0-0 as tax for the income-tax year 1119, in three equal monthly instalments. However, on August 25, 1953, A. N. Padmanabha Shenoi took the position that no excess profits tax was due as the assessments in respect of excess profits tax for the years 1119, 1120 and 1121 became final by the orders of the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax in Excess Profit Appeals Nos. 3 of 1120, 7 of 1121 and Excess Profits Tax Review No. 2 of 1124, respectively. He alleged that the said orders have not been and could not be reopened under the provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act. He, further asserted that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to appropriate the sum of Rs. 71,851-9-0 which had been paid by him as advance tax towards income-tax and super-tax that may be legally due under the disclosure scheme towards the excess profits tax alleged to be due. Further correspondence ensued between the parties. However, on August 31, 1954, three demand notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Treasury towards the head ' Income-tax ' ..... It was for the first tame on 11th August, 1953, that the adjustment of Rs. 71,851-9-0 was made by the Income-tax Officer The letter is not an assessment order. The Income-tax Officer does not say under what authority he has adjusted the said amount towards excess profits tax..... There is nothing in exhibit D-9 to show that either Padmanabha Shenoi or his son, the first plaintiff, agreed to pay the excess profits tax." The trial court further held : " If payments are already made towards income-tax, they could not be re-adjusted or re-opened, the demand notices for payment of income-tax cannot be considered to be valid, because no amount remains to be paid towards income-tax." The trial court also held that excess profits tax was not leviable from the plaintiffs on the relevant dates. The trial court further repelled the contention of the Union of India that the plaintiffs are estopped from denying their liability to pay excess profits tax. In the result, the trial court passed a decree granting the prayers made by the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed to the High Court. The High Court upheld all the findings of the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying that he had not agreed to pay excess profits tax ; and (c) that the suit was barred by the provisions of section 111 of the Cochin Income-tax Act of 1117 M. E., which, inter alia, provides that no suit shall be brought in any civil court to set aside or modify any assessment made under this Act. We will first deal with the points raised in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1966, by the learned counsel for the defendant, seriatim. Whether the plaintiff's father had agreed to pay excess profits tax in addition to income-tax is a question of fact. Both the trial court and the High Court have found that there was no such agreement. No writing is produced in support of this contention. The notification of the Government of India, dated May 20, 1951, does not mention excess profits tax or Excess Profits Tax Officers. We have not been shown any material to enable us to set aside this concurrent finding. In the result, it must be held that, it is not proved that the plaintiff's father had agreed to pay excess profits tax. There is also no force in the plea of estoppel. Apart from the fact that in the letter dated August 19, 1953, the plaintiff's father did not contest his liability to pay e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
