Skip to content


income-tax Officer, New Delhi Vs. T. R. Subramonia Iyer and Others. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Apopeal No. 37 of 1961
Reported in[1963]48ITR985(Ker)
Appellantincome-tax Officer, New Delhi
RespondentT. R. Subramonia Iyer and Others.
Excerpt:
- - the proviso does not contemplate a case of an expansion of the act to the travancore-cochin area as well......section 46(7) provides that action under that section should be taken within an year of the last date of the financial year in which the demand was made. the demand was in the year 1943-44 and hence action should have been taken before march 31, 1945. proceedings, however, were started only in 1950. reliance is placed on the proviso to section 42(1). we do not think that the proviso or the sub-section has any application. the proviso deals with a case of the assets which are, or which may at any time, come within the taxable territories. the proviso does not contemplate a case of an expansion of the act to the travancore-cochin area as well. in such cases, we think, the section or the proviso is not attracted at all. we dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.appeal.....
Judgment:

This appeal is by the Income-tax Officer, New Delhi, the first respondent in an original petition moved under article 226 of the Constitution by the first respondent in this appeal and challenged the order allowing the original petition to some extent.

The question involved is whether the appellant is entitled to proceed under section 46 of the Income-tax Act against the assets of the first respondent for tax assessed on him for the year of assessment 1943-44. Section 46(7) provides that action under that section should be taken within an year of the last date of the financial year in which the demand was made. The demand was in the year 1943-44 and hence action should have been taken before March 31, 1945. Proceedings, however, were started only in 1950. Reliance is placed on the proviso to section 42(1). We do not think that the proviso or the sub-section has any application. The proviso deals with a case of the assets which are, or which may at any time, come within the taxable territories. The proviso does not contemplate a case of an expansion of the Act to the Travancore-Cochin area as well. In such cases, we think, the section or the proviso is not attracted at all. We dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //