9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said assessee company on account of arrears of income-tax, excess profits tax and business profits tax. To recover this amount, a suit was filed on February 15, 1958, impleading therein besides the present appellant, the said assessee-company and others as defendants. It was alleged that the assessee-company by its letter dated October 4, 1948, informed the plaintiff, Union of India, that the arrears due from it be recovered from the petitioner [appellant] on account of its commission. It was alleged that for recovery of the said amount, notice under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act was issued on two occasions, November 9, 1948, and March 30, 1951, and a notice under section 46(5A) of the Act was issued against the appellant-de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee-company was shown to the credit of the assessee-company in the books of account of the appellant-company, the appellant-company had subsequently set up a false theory that the assessee-company itself was liable to the appellant-company and that the appellant-company was not liable to pay dues of the assessee. It was in terms asserted that the version set up by the appellant-company that it had a claim against the assessee-company was a got-up version and that it had been created merely with a view to defeat or delay the dues of the plaintiff. It was contended that the appellant-company had made a false counter-claim against the assessee-company with this end in view, viz., to defeat and delay the claim of the plaintiff though it had ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raud and collusion has been levelled against the appellant-company, the assessee-company and the other defendants. With these facts, the respondent, Union of India, instituted the present suit seeking a decree against defendants Nos. 1 to 5, i.e., the present appellant and the other defendants for an amount of Rs. 1,32,400.87 with interest and a prayer also was made for appointment of a receiver for recovery of the amount due from defendant No. 5 and its nominees, other defendants. Various defences were raised. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the trial court held that the plaintiff respondent was not entitled to a money decree against the appellant-company. It also recorded a finding that the contention of the appellant-company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecree against the original debtor. Facts are not in dispute. The learned judges of the High Court maintained the decree by coming to the conclusion that the amount of commission earned by the assessee-company was admittedly with the appellant. It was withheld by the appellant under the pretext that it had a counter-claim against the assessee. It is also not in dispute that under section 46(2), a prohibitory order attaching the said money of the assessee-company was issued. It is also not in dispute that the machinery under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act was no longer effective as the appellant set up a counter-claim against the assessee-company and there was no option for the Union of India but to obtain adjudication from the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
