TMI Blog1960 (4) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. Private Ltd., which is attributable to the income of the company arising in Pakistan, can be withdrawn while making reassessment under section 34(1)(b)? It will suffice to state the facts in the first reference, which arises out of the reassessment made upon the assessee for the assessment year 1949-50 by having recourse to the provisions of section 34, may be briefly stated. The assessee is a shareholder of M/s. Narandas Rajaram Co. Ltd., which carries on business in the taxable territories and in Pakistan and profits accrued to that company in both the Dominions. The dividend portion attributable to the profits that accrued to the company in Pakistan amounted to ₹ 2,722. The original assessment was completed by the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar. Though more than one year has elapsed this certificate has not been produced, and as such the abatement on Pakistan income is no longer available to the assessee. The result was that the assessee was asked to pay the amount of ₹ 836 as income-tax and the amount of ₹ 1,478-7-0 as super-tax on that dividend income of ₹ 2,722. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer and the appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed. The very short point urged before us by Mr. Palkhivala, learned counsel for the assessee, is that the Income-tax Officer did not keep this amount of tax in abeyance, which could have been done only after taxing the amount, but what he did was that he did not assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion of the income must be taxed but there would be an abatement and that abatement would cease to be operative if no requisite certificate is obtained within the specified period. It is also argued that there must, be a demand for the amount of the tax including the amount of the Pakistan portion of the income and the demand must be without allowing the abatement. In such a case what should be done is, so the argument has proceeded, that the amount of tax will be held in abeyance for a period of one year. It is only the collection of a portion of the demand, which is deferred. Mr. Palkhivala has drawn our attention to the Assessment Form and Part II of the same, which is headed Sums included in total income in respect of which income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax and super-tax. We do not think we would be justified in drawing any such implication from what is stated in Part II of that Form. Then it is said that in effect the result is the same and what happened was that for the time being the assessee was not to pay any tax on the amount of ₹ 2,722. Now this argument of necessary implication may avail in certain cases, but we fail to see how it can be availed of by the Department in the present case. Assuming that there is scope for some implication, how far is the implication to go ? Is the implication to be read as underlying also the notice of demand ? The answer to that must be that there is here little scope for such implication and none whatever in case of the notice of dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
