| Case ID |
ebd89f40-1969-45e9-a82c-7755945f4bd5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WRIT PETITION No. 3870 OF 1965 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 16, 1971 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The writ petition was dismissed as the court found that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had the jurisdiction to act under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The essential prerequisite for a writ of prohibition was not satisfied, as there was no complete absence of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory tribunal. The petitioner's arguments regarding the lack of business connection with the impugned trade name were found to be unsubstantiated, given the evidence of partnership and business activities at the specified location. The court upheld the assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner and confirmed the revenue's claim for tax recovery. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the writ petition filed by P. Kandappa Gounder against the Fifth Income Tax Officer regarding the collection and recovery of tax dues under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner disputed the assessment made against him and claimed he had no connection with the trade name used for the business. The Madras High Court, presided by Justice Ramaprasada Rao, examined the facts surrounding the partnership and business operations conducted by the petitioner and others. The court determined that the ITO acted within his jurisdiction under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 226 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that a writ of prohibition is only appropriate when there is a total absence of jurisdiction, which was not the case here. The ruling affirmed the tax recovery proceedings against the petitioner, highlighting the importance of compliance with tax laws and the accountability of business partners in unregistered firms. This case underscores the complexities of tax assessments and the legal obligations of partners in business ventures, particularly in the context of unregistered firms. It serves as a crucial reference for similar tax-related disputes and the judicial interpretation of jurisdictional matters in tax law. Keywords: Income Tax, Writ Petition, Tax Recovery, Madras High Court, Jurisdiction, Partnership, Tax Assessment. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Standard Starch Products Company,
Standard Starch Manufacturing Company,
SSPC,
SSMC
|
| Judges |
Ramaprasada Rao, J.
|
| Lawyers |
K. Srinivasan,
K.C. Rajappa,
V. Balasubrahmanyan,
J. Jayaraman
|
| Petitioners |
P. Kandappa Gounder
|
| Respondents |
Fifth Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1972 SLD 447 = (1972) 83 ITR 42
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
226,
34,
34
|