| Case ID |
00c1430b-ddf3-414e-9712-2d70d2529476 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2367 (NT) OF 1972 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 21, 1981 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal in part, upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 226(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it did not cause any prejudice despite not specifying the amount due. However, the Court quashed the notices issued under section 226(3)(vi) for being invalid, as the Income Tax Officer did not conduct a proper quasi-judicial inquiry or follow the principles of natural justice before declaring the affidavit filed by the appellants' accountant as false in any material particular. The Court emphasized the necessity for the Income Tax Officer to hold an inquiry and provide an opportunity to the appellants to contest the findings before imposing personal liability for tax arrears. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Beharilal Ramcharan v. Income Tax Officer (CIVIL APPEAL No. 2367 (NT) OF 1972), the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 226(3)(i), 226(3)(vi), and 226(3)(x). The petitioners, engaged in banking and cloth dealing, contested a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) demanding payment of tax arrears related to their dealings with B Ltd. The notice under section 226(3)(i) did not specify the exact amount due, a point of contention raised by the petitioners. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this notice, ruling that the absence of a specific amount did not render it invalid, provided there was no prejudice to the parties involved.
A pivotal aspect of the case was the affidavit submitted by the petitioners’ accountant, asserting that no amount was due to the ITO, contrary to the ITO’s claims of significant arrears. Under section 226(3)(vi), the ITO challenged this affidavit, alleging it was false in material particulars. The Supreme Court emphasized that the ITO must adhere to quasi-judicial procedures before declaring an affidavit false. This includes conducting an inquiry, observing principles of natural justice, and providing the appellants an opportunity to contest the allegations. The Court found that the ITO had prematurely declared the affidavit false without proper inquiry, thereby violating procedural fairness.
As a result, while the Supreme Court affirmed the notice under section 226(3)(i), it quashed the subsequent notices under section 226(3)(vi), highlighting the necessity for due process in tax recovery procedures. This case underscores the importance of adherence to legal protocols and the rights of appellants in tax disputes, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair and just administrative actions by tax authorities. The decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving tax recovery and the procedural safeguards that must be observed to uphold natural justice and prevent arbitrary imposition of liabilities on taxpayers. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
Income Tax Officer,
B Ltd.,
Beharilal Ramcharan,
TRO,
Shiv Kumar Arora
|
| Judges |
P.N. Bhagwati,
A.P. Sen,
E.S. Venkataramiah
|
| Lawyers |
S.K. Jain for the Appellant,
Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Beharilal Ramcharan
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1981 SLD 1868,
(1981) 131 ITR 129
|
| Other Citations |
Behari Lal Ram Charan v. ITO [1972] 84 ITR 113
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
226(3)(i),
226(3)(vi),
226(3)(x)
|