Case Details

Citation(s)
1955 SLG 197 1955 SLD 197 (1955) 27 ITR 496
Madras High Court

KRISHNASWAMI NAYUDU, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

The Union of India

v.

M. Kanakarathnam & Bros.

Law:

Section:

Section 280 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 54(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Offences and prosecutions - Disclosure of particulars by public servants - Assessment year 1943-44 - Whether for purposes connected with assessment or for recovery thereof, it is always open to income-tax department to use particulars contained in such documents or record or part of record or proceedings, and confidential nature of document, therefore, cannot be used against them - Held, yes - On a notice of demand of tax, assessee gave an undertaking not to alienate their properties until income-tax dues were paid - However, assessee sold some properties - Whether department had been deprived of assets of assessee against which they had got a right to proceed - Held, yes - Whether therefore, department was entitled to use in court as evidence documents which formed part of record of assessment proceedings which under section 54 of 1922 Act should be treated as confidential - Held, yes FACTS The defendants were two brothers carrying on business in partnership. For the assessment year 1943-44, the assessments were completed and a notice of demand was served on them calling upon them to pay certain tax. Pending appeal before AAC, the assessees applied to the ITO for time. This application was rejected and the assessee applied to the IAC for a similar relief. The IAC passed an order that if the assessees paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 forthwith and gave an undertaking not to create any charge over or alienate their properties in British India until the income-tax dues were paid, time would be granted till the disposal of the appeal. An undertaking signed by the defendants was filed before the IAC. The assessees paid only a sum of Rs. 5,000 and failed to pay the balance. In the meanwhile, they brought into existence the sale deed in question in favour of defendant 3. The plaintiff's case was that the suit properties formed the bulk of the properties belonging to the assessees and except for a few small items they had practically alienated their entire estate with a view to defeat and delay the creditors including the Government. When the suit was taken up for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492