TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate Ltd. with the approval of the Central Govt. with effect from 2nd May, 1963. The petitioner-company was an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act"'), as also under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called " the Act "), and had been regularly assessed and paying income-tax on its income. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1947-48, the petitioner-company deposited a sum of Rs. 1,29,953-4-0 as advance tax under s. 18A of the old Act. The advance tax was deposited in two equal instalments of Rs. 64,976-10-0 on 14th December, 1946, and 15th March 1947. On 15th August, 1947, partition of the country took place. Under s. 18(3) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to the assessment year 1947-48 (accounting year ending 31st August, 1946). So far as the payment of the amount of advance tax, i. e., Rs. 1,29,953-4-0 is concerned, the same has been found to have been proved as intimated by the ITO, Ambala, to the petitioner-company, vide letter dated 26th November, 1948, copy annex. P-4. In spite of the fact that prolonged correspondence has taken place between the petitioner-company on the one side and the revenue on the other side, no relief was granted to the petitioner-company with regard to the amount of Rs. 1,08,686-15-0 and finally notice dated 1st September, 1975, copy annex. P-22, was issued against the petitioner-company requiring it to make the payment of the aforesaid amount within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner-company chose to file a replication to the written statement submitted on behalf of the respondents in which the stand taken by it in the petition has been reiterated. The short question that needs determination in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the amount of Rs. 1,08,686-15-0 set off in India from the impugned assessment for the year 1947-48 out of the amount that he paid in Lahore as advance tax under s. 18A of the old Act. It was contended by Mr. Sibal, learned counsel, that the petitioner had made advance payment under s. 18A of the old Act, that this section read with s. 48 provides for a refund of the excess amount; that, the petitioner was assessed in Lahore for the assessment year 1947-48 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was incumbent on the petitioner to have produced the refund voucher for verification as to how much amount out of the advance tax remained unadjusted. In other words, the only plea put forward by the learned counsel was that the production of a refund voucher was a, sine qua non for an adjustment of the balance amount of advance tax in India. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be observed at the outset that in the present case the point involved, though simple, has been unnecessarily complicated by the revenue. As is evident from the facts of the case, payment of advance tax under s. 18A in Pakistan to the tune of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 18(3) of the Indian Independence Act was to change the incidence of the advance tax paid. Previously the advance tax was to be adjusted towards a single regular assessment to be made by British India. After the Indian Independence Act the advance tax was liable to be adjusted against two regular assessments, one by India and one by Pakistan. In Pakistan, under section 18A(11), the Pakistan Government was entitled to, adjust the advance tax paid by the assessee against its demand. Similarly, the Government of India was entitled to adjust the amount against its demand." Reference may also be made to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in L. Dwarka Dass v. ITO [1956] 29 ITR 60, wherein an identical question on practically similar fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made and the petitioner having made payments under section 18A to the Government of India, the provisions of section 48 are attracted to the facts of the case. The petitioner satisfied the Income-tax Officer at Lucknow that the amount that he paid under section 18A exceeded the amount with which he was chargeable under the Income-tax Act for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and the Income-tax Officer referred the matter to higher authorities. The petitioner's case clearly comes under the wording of that section and he is thus entitled to a refund of the excess payments made for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48. According to section 49E, if a refund is found to be due to any person, the Income-tax Officer, in lieu of payment of the amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
