TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs specified in the First Schedule of that Act vested in the Central Government and immediately thereafter in the National Textile Corporation Limited on and from the appointed date, namely, April 1, 1974. One of the sick textile undertakings specified in the First Schedule is the Kalyanmal Mills at Indore which before the aforesaid appointed date was owned by respondent No. 3, the Kalyanmal Mills Limited, Indore. Under s. 6 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the National Textile Corporation Limited, New Delhi, is authorised to form subsidiary corporation and to transfer any sick textile undertaking vested in it to such subsidiary corporation. Accordingly, the National Textile Corporation Limited, New Delhi, form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed the Kalyanmal Mills Tent Factory for the assessment years 1942-43 to 1947-48, and levied income-tax on the assessee-firm. The company, a partner of the assessee-firm, paid the amount of tax totalling to a sum of Rs. 4,78,260.30, but the matter was taken up in appeal before the AAC, who dismissed the appeal. On further appeal, before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal by its order dated November 25, 1971, upheld the contention of the assessee firm that as no part of the profits and gains of the assessee-firm had arisen in the taxable territory the income from the supply of tents was not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The Department sought a reference before the High Court and, at the instanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive a refund of the amount of tax and that the petitioner could not claim that amount. On behalf of respondent No. 3, the company, it was averred that the Kalyanmal Mills Tent Factory was not a part and parcel of the undertaking known as " the Kalyanmal Mills " and the right to receive a refund of the amount of tax vested in the respondent-company which had made the payment on behalf of the assessee firm. Shri Chaphekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that " Kalyanmal Mills Tent Factory " was a part and parcel of the undertaking known as " The Kalyanmal Mills " owned by respondent No. 3, and as the undertaking " The Kalyanmal Mills " was vested in the petitioner Corporation under the provisions of the Sick Textile U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid undertaking and not the entire property of respondent No. 3, has become vested in the petitioner. Now, whether the firm, " The Kalyanmal Mills Tent Factory ", was or was not a part of the undertaking " The Kalyanmal Mills " is a disputed question of fact and we refrain from expressing any opinion on that question. That question would be decided in the appropriate proceedings by a court on the basis of the material produced before it. The short question for consideration before us is whether we can direct the Income-tax Department to refund the amount of tax paid by the assessee-firm, " The Kalyanmal Mills Tent Factory ", to the petitioner. As already observed, the only obligation imposed by s. 240 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
