Case Details

Citation(s)
1960 SLG 310 1960 SLD 310 (1960) 39 ITR 497
Allahabad High Court
CIVIL MISC. WRIT No. 321 OF 1956, FEBRUARY 17, 1959
BHARGAVA AND UPADHYA, JJ

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

Moti Lal Purshottam Das

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Bhargava, J.-The petitioners Moti Lal and Purshottam Das prayed to this court for issue of a writ in the nature ofcertiorari to quash a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, District II (iii), Kanpur, dated the 4th November, 1955, whereby the petitioners were called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 12,125-14-0 and for the issue of a further writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the opposite party not to recover that amount from the petitioners, and not to take any further proceedings for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. The notice, which was thus challenged, called upon the petitioners to deposit this amount, which had been assessed as income-tax on the firm of Messrs. Indian Distillery, Anwarganj, Kanpur, on the ground that the petitioners were jointly and severally liable for the payment of this tax under section 44 of the Income-tax Act. It was further stated in the notice that, if the 'amount was not deposited within the period of three days from the receipt of the notice, the opposite party would be compelled to take suitable action against the petitioners including action under section 46(1) of the Income-tax Act. The notice was challenged originally in the writ petition on three grounds: The first ground was that this notice was illegal because section 44 of the Income-tax Act was not applicable, as the business of the assessee firm had not been discontinued but had been succeeded to by one of the partners Madan Behari Singhania. The second ground urged was that, since the provisions of section 44 of the Income-tax Act were not applicable, the tax could not be recovered from the petitioners, as there was no provision under the Income-tax Act authorising the Income-tax Officer to recover the tax from the petitioners when it was due from the firm. The third ground was that the Income-tax Officer had once agreed to realise the tax assessed on the firm from the partners in proportion to their shares, and thereafter he was not competent to recover the 'amount of tax of the share of partner from other partners. During the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application for amending the grounds taken in the…
🔒
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