# ·ss4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM, TRIPURA, MANIPUR & NAGALAND v. M/S. RAMESHWARI LAL SANWARMAL September ll2, 1971 ' - **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 854 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1972 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1956 and 1957 of 1969 - **Bench:** Hegde, A. N. Grover - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ss4-commissioner-of-income-tax-assam-tripura-manipur-nagaland-v-m-s-rameshwari-5479 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Jnco1ne-tax Act, 1922, ss. 27 and 34(3 )-Assess111enr on S as indivi- .dual set aside under s. 27 and fresh assessl'Yzent 1nacle on S as karta of H.U.F.--Fresh assessnient is on a differe11t assessee and not one under s. 27--Cannot claim protection of s. 34(3) 2nd pro_viso. Jnco111e-tax Act, 1922, s. 2(6A)-Shares of co111pany in which ,public .are not substantially interested-Held in na1ne of ka1ra in H.U.F.-Loan to karta by conipany Jvliether liable to be treated as 'dividend' under .s. 2(6A). In connection with the assessment year 1955-56 the lncomc-tax Officer issued notice under s. 22(2) of the Income-lax Act, 1922 to S in the status of an individual. He submitted a return in the stattL'i of kirta of :his H.U.F. The Income-tax Officer passed an. ex-parte assessn1ent ·order ·on him as individual under s. 23(4). The assessment was however set aside on S's application under s. 27 of the Act. A fresh assessment was made on the H.U.F. on February 6, 1961 on the basis of the return submitted by S in that status. This assessment was made a'fter the period of four years mentioned in s. 34(3) of the Act. The question in appellate and reference proceedings was whether the latter assessment was one .under s. 27 and therefore protected as regards"1limitation under s. 34(3) 2nd proviso. In the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 certain loans were advanced to the aforesaid H.U.F. by a com- -pany. The tribunal found that S held ce·rtain shares in that company. Its further finding was that he held these shares as the karta of his H.U.F.- The company being one in which the public were not substantially interested the question Was 1whether these loans could be considered as belonging to S and therefore any loan given by the c,ompany to S could not come within the scope of cl. (3) to s. 2(6A). HELD: (i) The return submitted by Si~ respect of the year 1955-56 was in his capacity as karta o.f his family. The status shown in the return was H.U.F. He filed no return in the status of an individual. The two capacities are totally different. The ex-paJ:te· order was made against .S in the statUs of an individual. What was set ii.Side under s. 27 was the aSsessmeru made on him in the status of an individ.ual. There was no assessment against H:U.F. and there was no question o'f setting aside any assessment made against H.U.F. On February 6, 1961 the H.U.F. was assessed for the ftrst time though the Income-tax Officer \Vrongly called it as a fresh assessment. 'On the facts established it was not possible to -come to the conclusion that the assessment made against the H.U.F. was an assessment under s. 27. That being so the a~sessrnent made against the H.U.F. on February 6, 1961 was clearly barred by time. The High Court was accordingly justifi,ed in answering the first question against the Department. [ll58 D·Gl A B --- D E G H A B c D E F G H C.I.T. v. RAMESHWARI LAL (Hegde, J.) 855 (ii) Since the High Court had not gone into the question whether the shares were held by S in his individual capacity or as karta of H.U.F., this Court had to proceed on the basis of the finding of the Tribunal that he held those shares as the .karta of his family. · This Court held in Kishanchand Lunidasing Bajaj's case that when the shares acquired with the funds of H.U.F. were held in the name of the karta, the H.U.F. could be' assessed to tax under the Act on the dividend from those shares. In view of that decision the Joan in question must be held to be dividend within the meaning of cl. (e) of s. 2(6A). [The Court however made it clear that the loan grantJ!d in the account year previous to the assessment year 1955-56 could not be brought to tax because assessment in respect of that year was not made within the time prescribed.] [859 B-H] Kishanchattd Lunidasing Bajaj v. C.I. T .. Bangalore, 60 I.T.R. 500, applied. ## Text ·ss4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM, TRIPURA, MANIPUR & NAGALAND v. M/S. RAMESHWARI LAL SANWARMAL September ll2, 1971 ' [K. s., HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Jnco1ne-tax Act, 1922, ss. 27 and 34(3 )-Assess111enr on S as indivi- .dual set aside under s. 27 and fresh assessl'Yzent 1nacle on S as karta of H.U.F.--Fresh assessnient is on a differe11t assessee and not one under s. 27--Cannot claim protection of s. 34(3) 2nd pro_viso. Jnco111e-tax Act, 1922, s. 2(6A)-Shares of co111pany in which ,public .are not substantially interested-Held in na1ne of ka1ra in H.U.F.-Loan to karta by conipany Jvliether liable to be treated as 'dividend' under .s. 2(6A). In connection with the assessment year 1955-56 the lncomc-tax Officer issued notice under s. 22(2) of the Income-lax Act, 1922 to S in the status of an individual. He submitted a return in the stattL'i of kirta of :his H.U.F. The Income-tax Officer passed an. ex-parte assessn1ent ·order ·on him as individual under s. 23(4). The assessment was however set aside on S's application under s. 27 of the Act. A fresh assessment was made on the H.U.F. on February 6, 1961 on the basis of the return submitted by S in that status. This assessment was made a'fter the period of four years mentioned in s. 34(3) of the Act. The question in appellate and reference proceedings was whether the latter assessment was one .under s. 27 and therefore protected as regards"1limitation under s. 34(3) 2nd proviso. In the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 certain loans were advanced to the aforesaid H.U.F. by a com- -pany. The tribunal found that S held ce·rtain shares in that company. Its further finding was that he held these shares as the karta of his H.U.F.- The company being one in which the public were not substantially interested the question Was 1whether these loans could be considered as belonging to S and therefore any loan given by the c,ompany to S could not come within the scope of cl. (3) to s. 2(6A). HELD: (i) The return submitted by Si~ respect of the year 1955-56 was in his capacity as karta o.f his family. The status shown in the return was H.U.F. He filed no return in the status of an individual. The two capacities are totally different. The ex-paJ:te· order was made against .S in the statUs of an individual. What was set ii.Side under s. 27 was the aSsessmeru made on him in the status of an individ.ual. There was no assessment against H:U.F. and there was no question o'f setting aside any assessment made against H.U.F. On February 6, 1961 the H.U.F. was assessed for the ftrst time though the Income-tax Officer \Vrongly called it as a fresh assessment. 'On the facts established it was not possible to -come to the conclusion that the assessment made against the H.U.F. was an assessment under s. 27. That being so the a~sessrnent made against the H.U.F. on February 6, 1961 was clearly barred by time. The High Court was accordingly justifi,ed in answering the first question against the Department. [ll58 D·Gl A B --- D E G H A B c D E F G H C.I.T. v. RAMESHWARI LAL (Hegde, J.) 855 (ii) Since the High Court had not gone into the question whether the shares were held by S in his individual capacity or as karta of H.U.F., this Court had to proceed on the basis of the finding of the Tribunal that he held those shares as the .karta of his family. · This Court held in Kishanchand Lunidasing Bajaj's case that when the shares acquired with the funds of H.U.F. were held in the name of the karta, the H.U.F. could be' assessed to tax under the Act on the dividend from those shares. In view of that decision the Joan in question must be held to be dividend within the meaning of cl. (e) of s. 2(6A). [The Court however made it clear that the loan grantJ!d in the account year previous to the assessment year 1955-56 could not be brought to tax because assessment in respect of that year was not made within the time prescribed.] [859 B-H] Kishanchattd Lunidasing Bajaj v. C.I. T .. Bangalore, 60 I.T.R. 500, applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1956 and 1957 of 1969 and 1426 and 1427 of 1971. Appeals by certificate/special leave from the jμdgment and order dated May 10, 1965 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1964. S. C. Manchanda and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in all the appeals). 0. P. Khaitan,, for the respondent (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. Ciivl Appeals Nos. 1956-57 of 1969 by certificates have become infructuous as the certificates on the strength of which those appeals were brought w~re not properly issued. To get over that difficulty, the Commissioner of Incom~-tax applied for and obtained special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High c;ourt of Assam and Nagaland. The appeals filed on the basis of the special leave granted are Civil Appeals Nos. 1426 and 1427 of 1971. At present we are only concerned with those appeals. Tl!'~ judgll!ent under appeal i.s . one rendered in a reference under s. 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter called the Act). The Income-tax Appeilate Tribunal after stating the case referred the following six questions for the opinion of the High Court : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumS'tances of the ca~~ and upon a true interpretation of the provisions of the Second proviso to s. 34 (3), the assessment for 1he year 1955-56 on the applicant Hindu undivided family made on 6-2-1961, pursuant to an order under section 27, cance]ling the assessm.~nt of Shri S. M. Saharia, as an individual, was barred by limitation ? 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 1 s.c.R. 2. Whether on 1he facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a 'true interpretation of the terms of section 2(6A) (e) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amoun1s of Rs. 2,21,702. (gross) and Rs. 3,43,505 (net) were taxable as dividends in tho~ hands of the applicant H.U.F. for the asse~s ment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively, when the i;hares were registered in the name of Sri S. M. Saharia, the Karta of 1he family ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to justify the conclusion 'that Sri S. M. Saharia was holding shares in Messrs. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. (Private) Ltd. in his capacity as Karta of the applicant family consisting of himself and his minor son ? 4. Wheth-~r on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before 1the Tribunal for the finding that the applicant family was the beneficiary up till 16-8-1955 in respect of 50 shares registered in the name of Sri S. M. Saharia on 16-5-1953, before the disruption in the joint status of th.~ family of Hanut~am Ramprotap? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circums1ances of the case, the Tribunal was justified'in holding that the Hindu undivided family of Hanutram Ramprotap was not a sharehold·~r in M/s. Shyam Sundar Tea Company (P) Ltd. up till 16-8-1955? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, i.n computing the accumulated profits of Messrs. Sh yam Sunder Tea Co. (P) Ltd. within the meaning of Section 2(6A) (e), the Tribunal acted rightly in refusing to allow, (a) deduction in respect of loans advanced by the said Company to the erstwhile family of . Messrs. Hanutram Ramprotap which amounted to Rs. 3,60,989 as at 31-12-1954 and increa&·~ to Rs. 3,80,567 as at 16-8-1955 and written off at the end of the year 1955. (b) deduction in respect of Rs. 51,049 and Rs. 66,206 for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, respectively, being the difference between the written down value of depreciable assets of the said Company as per income-tax records and their book valw~ ?" B c D E F G C.1,T. v. RAMESHWARI LAL (Hegde, J.) 857 A The High Court has answered the first two questions in favour of the assessee and it did not go into the other questions as it opineis of the return submitted on October 29, 1959. Prima facie this assessment is barred bys. 34(3) which says: F G "No ord~r of assessment or reassessmell't, other than an order of assessment under section 23 to which clause ( c) of sub-section (I) of section 28 applies or an order of assessment or reassessment in cas.es falling within clause (a) of sub-section (I) or sub-section ( lA) of this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of ithe year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable." · It is not the case of the Department that the assessment in question either fall~ under clause ( c) of sub-section ( 1) of section H 28 or clause (a) of sub-section (1) or sub-seotion (lA) of s. 34. Therefore the Department cannot take any assistance from the mains. 34(3). But in support of its contention that the assess.I 3-L119S ip.(Cl)/72 SSS SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] l S.C.R. A ment was made within time, reliance was placed by the Department on the &~cond proviso to s. 34(3 ). That proviso reads: "Provided further that nothing contained in this section limiting the time within which any action may be_ taken or any order, assessmell't or reassessment may be made shall apply to reassesment made under section 2 7 or to an assessment or reassessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33A, section 33B, section 66· or sec!ion 66A." What was contended on behalf of the Department is that the reassessment in this case was made under s. 27. That contention ha~ b~n upheld by 'the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. But the High Court has come to the conclusion that the reassessment was not made under that section. To recapitulate the facts which we have earlier mentioned, the return submitted by Saharia was in his capacity as the karta of his f!llllily. The status shown in the return is H.U.F. He filed no return in the status of an individual. The same person can be taxed tpth as an individual as well as the karta of his family. The two capacities are totally different. The liability to be taxed as an individual is_ different from the liability to be taxed on behalf of his H.U.F. The individual and the H.U.F. are totally different units of taxation. They are two different assessees. The ex-parte order was made on February 29, 1960 against Saharia in the sta'u> of an individual. What was set aside under s. 27 was the assessment made on him in the status of an individual. There was no assessment against H.U.F. Hence there was no question of setting aside any assessm~nt made against H.U.F. On February 6, 1961, the H.U.F. was assessed for the first time though the Income-tax Officer wrong called it as a fresh assessment. On the facts established, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the assess· ment made against the H.U.F. was an assessment under s. 27. That being so, the assessment made against the H.U.F. on February 6, 1961 is clearly barred by time. Hence the High Court was justified in answering the first question; against the Department . . Now coming to the second que~tion, the releyant facts are these : In the relevant previous years to 'the assessment y~ars 1955-56 B c D E F G and 1956-57, certain loans had been advanced to the H.U.F. by · H a company known as M/s. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. (P) Ltd. The Tribunal has found that Saharia had held certain shares in that company. Its further finding is that he held those-shares as the c.r.T. v. RAMESHWARI LAL (Hegde, I.) 859 A karta of his H.l].F. Therefore the question that arose for decision was whether those loans can be considered as "dividends" as provided in clause (e) of s. 2(6A). There was controversy between the parties whether those shares were held by Saharia in his individual capacity or as the karta of the family. That controversy has not been gone into by the High Court. At present we are.Proc~d· B ing on the basis that he held those shares as the karta of his family. c D E F G H Clause (e) of s. 2(6A) says: " "dividend" includCi ..... . ( e) any payment by a company, not being _a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of s. 23A, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of company or otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by any such company on behalf or for the individual benefit of a shareholder, to the extent. to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits." It is not disputed that Mis. Shyam Sunder Tea Co. (P) Ltd. iii not a company in which public are substantially interested. It is a private company. The only qm:stion ithat was in issue was that as the shares in question stood in the name of Saharia. can they in law be considered as the shares of the H.U.F. ? The High Court held for the purpose of the Act, they must be considered as the shares of Saharia and therefore any loan granted by Ml s. Sh yam Sunder Tea Co. Ltd. to the H.U.F. cannot come within the scope of clause (e) to s. 2(6A). In arriving at that conclusion, the High Court differed from the view taken by the Mysore High Court in Kishanchand Lunidasing Ba;a; v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore(1), wherein that Court held that provisions of s. 18(5), 23A and 16 (2) ·and other provisions of the Act relating to shares and dividends do not lead to the. conclusi