{"id":117893,"date":"1993-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993"},"modified":"2018-05-21T16:27:35","modified_gmt":"2018-05-21T10:57:35","slug":"nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993","title":{"rendered":"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1888, \t\t 1993 SCR (2) 645<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAGARMAL BAIJNATH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 1888\t\t  1993 SCR  (2) 645\n 1993 SCC  Supl.  (2) 520 JT 1993 (3)\t579\n 1993 SCALE  (2)233\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\ttax  Act, 1922: Section 44 (prior  to  amendment  by\nFinance\t  Act,\t1958)-Scope  of-Dissolution  of\t  firm\t and\ndiscontinuance\tof  business-Assessment on  dissolved  firm-\nCorrectness of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant assessee, a firm which did business during the\naccounting  years relevant to assessment years\t1946-47\t and\n1947-48,  was  dissolved  by a\tdeed  of  dissolution  dated\nDecember  2,1946,  and Its business  discontinued.   Notices\nwere  issued  in  the  name  of\t the  partnership  firm\t and\nassessments were completed under the Income-tax Act 1922 and\nExcess\tProfits\t Tax Act, 1948.\t Indeed,  the  returns\twere\nflied in the name of the firm.\nDuring\tthe course of the assessment proceedings under\tboth\nthe  enactments viz.  Income-tax and Excess Profit Tax\tAct,\nno   objection\twas  taken  as\tto  the\t validity   of\t the\nproceedings.  Against the orders of assessment, appeals were\npreferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.  In these\nappeals\t also the validity of the assessment order  was\t not\nchallenged.    Even  In\t the  further  appeals\tbefore\t the\nTribunal,  no  objection was taken to the  validity  of\t the\nassessments.   Subsequently, however, permission was  sought\nfor  raising additional grounds questioning the validity  of\nthe  assessment\t proceedings.  Though, Revenue\topposed\t the\nsame,  the  Tribunal  permitted the said new  ground  to  be\nraised\ton the ground that the Income-tax Officer was  aware\nthat  the business of the firm was closed.  Ultimately,\t the\nTribunal  dismissed  the appeals.   Thereupon  the  assessee\nobtained  the reference and since it could not succeed\teven\nbefore\tthe  High  Court  the  assessee\t filed\tthe  present\nappeals.\nIt  was contended on behalf of the appellant see that  under\nthe unamended Section 44, no assessment could have been made\nupon  a firm which was dissolved by the time the  assessment\nwas made.\n646\nDismissing the appeals, this Court,\nHELD:1.1.  Section  44\tof  the\t Income-tax  Act,  1922\n(before\t Its  Amendment by Finance Act,\t 1958)\tcovered\t two\nsituations:  (1) where any business, profession or  vocation\ncarried\t on  by\t a  firm  or  association  of  persons\t was\ndiscontinued  and  (2) where an association of\tpersons\t was\ndissolved.  In either of these situations, every person\t who\nat  the\t time of such discontinuance or\t dissolution  was  a\npartner of such firm or member of such association was\tmade\njointly and severally liable to assessment under Chapter  IV\nin  respect of the Income, profits and pins of the  firm  or\nassociation  as\t the  case may be.  The\t joint\tand  several\nliability extended to the payment of the tax. [650 C-D]\n1.2.The\t instant case Is one where the dissolution  of\tthe\nfirm resulted in discontinuance of its business.  This Court\nis  not\t concerned  with the situation where  the  firm\t was\ndissolved   but\t its  business\twas  not   discontinued,   a\ndistinction  which has to be borne in mind.  In the case  of\ndissolution resulting in discontinuance of business S.44  of\nthe  Income-tax Act, 1922 enabled the Income-tax Officer  to\nmake  an  assessment  on the dissolved\tfirm.\tIndeed\tthis\naspect is no longer res integra in view of the settled\tlaw.\n[650 E-H]\nC.A.  Abrahani\tv. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam &  Anr.,  41\nI.T.R.\t425  and  Shivram Poddar  v.  Incomne  Tax  Officer,\nCentral\t Circle II, Calcutta & Anr.,<\/a> 51 I.T.R.\t823,  relied\non.\nC.LT., Bombay v. Devidayal, 68 I.T.R. 425, Larmidas v.\tC.LT\nBombay,\t 72 I.T.R. 88 and Nagarmal Baijnath v.\tC.I.T.,\t 114\nI.T.R. 133, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 15657\/1979.
\nFrom  the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.1977 of\t the  Bombay
\nHigh Court in Income Tax Reference No. 44 of 1968.
\nU.   Rajagopal and Ashok Mathur for the Appellant.
\nA.   Raghubir and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n647<\/span>
\nB.P.  JEEVAN REDDY, J. These appeals are  preferred  against
\nthe  judgment  of  the\tBombay\tHigh  Court  in\t Income\t Tax
\nReference  No.44\/68.  The question  referred  under  Section
\n66(1)  of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and Section 21  of
\nthe Excess Profits Tax Act, 1948 for the opinion of the High
\nCourt reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether,\t  on   the   facts   and   in\t the
\n\t      circumstances  of\t the  case,  the  Income-Tax
\n\t      assessments for the years 1946-47 and  1947-48
\n\t      and  excess  profits tax assessments  for\t the
\n\t      chargeable accounting period ending  4.11.1945
\n\t      and 31.3.1946 made on M\/s.  Nagarmal Baijnath,
\n\t      a firm which was dissolved and whose  business
\n\t      was   discontinued   at  the   time   of\t the
\n\t      assessments, were validly made?’
\nThe  appellant assessee, M\/s.  Nagarmal Baijnath was a\tfirm
\nwhich  did business during the accounting years relevant  to
\nassessment  years  1946-47 and 1947-48, the  previous  years
\nbeing  the years ending November 4, 1945 and March 31,\t1946
\nrespectively.\tBy a deed of dissolution dated\tDecember  2,
\n1946, the firm was dissolved and its business discontinued.<\/p>\n
Notice\tunder  Section\t22(2) of the  Act  relating  to\t the
\nassessment  years  1946-47  was issued in the  name  of\t the
\npartnership firm and served on one Satyanarayan who accepted
\nit  on behalf of the firm, on August 19,  1946.\t  Subsequent
\nnotices\t under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) were also issued  in
\nthe  name of the firm and assessment completed on March\t 23,
\n1951  on  the  firm.  The same procedure  was  adopted\twith
\nrespect\t to  the  assessment  year  1947-48  and  assessment
\ncompleted  on  the  firm  on March 10,\t1.  So\tfar  as\t the
\nassessments under the Excess Profits Tax Act are  concerned,
\nnotices\t were  issued  again in the name  of  the  firm\t and
\nassessments completed in the name of the firm.\tIndeed,\t the
\nreturns\t were  filed  in  the name of  the  firm  signed  by
\nBaijnath Gajanand for and on behalf of the firm.
\nDuring\tthe course of the assessment proceedings under\tboth
\nthe  enactments, no objection was taken by anyone on  behalf
\nof the assessee to the validity of the proceedings.  Against
\nthe  orders  of assessment, appeals were  preferred  to\t the
\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner.  Even in these appeals the
\nvalidity  of the assessment orders was not  challenged.\t  On
\nthe  appeals  being dismissed, further\tappeals\t were  filed
\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.  In the grounds of
\nappeal\tbefore the Tribunal too, no objection was  taken  to
\nthe validity of the assessments.  Subsequently, how-\n<\/p>\n
648<\/span><\/p>\n
ever,  permission was sought for raising additional  grounds
\nin  appeal  questioning\t the  validity\tof  the\t  assessment
\nproceedings.   Though,\tthe Revenue opposed the\t same.’\t the
\nTribunal  permitted  the  said\tnew  ground  to\t be  raised,
\nobserving  that even from the assessment order\trelating  to
\nthe assessment year 1946-47, it appears that “the Income-Tax
\nOfficer was aware that the business of the firm was closed.”
\nUltimately,-however, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.  It
\nis thereupon that the appellant obtained the reference under
\nSection 66(1).\n<\/p>\n
The  only  question urged by the appellant before  the\tHigh
\nCourt was: inasmuch as the firm stood dissolved prior to the
\ndate  the  orders  of assessment relating to  the  said\t two
\nassessment  years  were made, the orders of  assessment\t are
\nvoid.\tIt  was\t urged that Section 44 of the  Act  did\t not
\nauthorise  the\tRevenue to make an assessment  on  the\tfirm
\nafter  it was dissolved.  The High Court first\tnoticed\t the
\nfactual\t finding  recorded by the Tribunal  viz.,  when\t the
\nassessments  were  made\t on the firm, the firm\twas  not  in
\nexistence, having been dissolved prior to that date and\t its
\nbusiness  discontinued.\t  The High Court  also\tnoticed\t the
\ncontention  of the assessee that inasmuch as “prior  to\t the
\ndates  of  the\trespective assessments, the  firm  had\tbeen
\ndissolved  and\tits business discontinued’  the\t assessments
\nmade  were contrary to law, in support of  which  contention
\nthe appellant assessee relied upon a judgment of the Gujarat
\nHigh Court in Special Civil Application No.429\/60,  disposed
\nof  on November 12, 1985.  The High Court refused to  follow
\nthe  said judgment in view of the consistent view  taken  by
\nthe Bombay High Court that even under the unamended  Section
\n44, it was permissible for the Revenue to make an assessment
\nupon   a   dissolved   firm  after   its   dissolution\t and
\ndiscontinuation\t of business.  Accordingly, it answered\t the
\nquestion referred to it in the affirmative i.e., against the
\nassessee and in favour of the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
In this appeal, it is contended by Sri V. Rajagopal, learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant that under the unamended  Section
\n44, no assessment could have been made upon a firm which was
\ndissolved  by the date of the assessment.   Learned  counsel
\nlaid  emphasis on the language of the Section.\t He  pointed
\nout  that  so  far as the discontinuance  is  concerned,  it
\nreferred  both\tto  association of persons as  well  as\t the
\nfirms, but when it referred to dissolution, it only referred
\nto  association of persons but not to the firm.\t This was  a
\nclear  pointer,\t says  the counsel, to\tthe  fact  that\t the
\nsection did not apply to dissolution of a firm though it may
\nhave applied to its
\n649<\/span>
\ndiscontinuation.    He\tfurther\t submitted  that  the\tmere
\napplication of the provisions of Chapter IV for the  purpose
\nof assessment did not mean that an assessment could be\tmade
\nupon  a non-existent entity.  He contrasted the language  of
\nunamended  Section 44 with the language employed in  amended
\nSection 44 and submitted that the very defect pointed out by
\nhim  in\t the  unamended\t provision  was\t rectified  by\t the
\namendment,  and\t the omission supplied.\t He  emphasised\t the
\nproposition  that an assessment cannot be made upon  a\tnon-
\nexistent  entity and that such an assessment is void in\t law
\nunless,\t of  course, the law provides for such a  course  in
\nexpress\t terms.\t No such provision was there in\t Section  44
\nbefore it was amended in 1958, says the counsel.
\nOn  the\t other\thand, it is contended by  Sri  A.  Raghuvir,
\nlearned counsel for the Revenue that the contention urged by
\nthe  appellant is concluded against him by the decisions  of
\nthis Court and that it is too late in the day to  re-agitate
\nthe said question.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 44 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 prior to\t its
\namendment by the Finance Act, 1958, read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Liability   in case of discontinued  firm  or
\n\t      association:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Where  any business, profession\tor  vocation
\n\t      carried on by a firm or association or persons
\n\t      has been discontinued or where an\t association
\n\t      of persons is dissolved, every person who\t was
\n\t      at   the\ttime  of  such\t discontinuance\t  or
\n\t      dissolution a partner of such firm or a member
\n\t      of  such association shall, in respect of\t the
\n\t      income,  profits\tand  gains of  the  firm  or
\n\t      association,  jointly and severally liable  to
\n\t      assessment under Chapter IV and for the amount
\n\t      of  tax  payable\tand all\t the  provisions  of
\n\t      Chapter  IV shall, so far as may be, apply  to
\n\t      any such assessment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       After it was amended, the Section read thus:
\n\t       “44.  Liability in case of firm\tdiscontinued
\n\t      or dissolved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (1)Where\t  any\tbusiness   profession\tor
\n\t      vocation\tcarried\t on  by\t a  firm  on   other
\n\t      association or persons has been  discontinued,
\n\t      or  where\t a  firm  of  other  association  of
\n\t      persons  is dissolved, the Income Tax  Officer
\n\t      shall make an assess-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      650<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ment of the total income of the firm or  other
\n\t      association  of persons as such as if no\tsuch
\n\t      discontinuance or dissolution had taken place.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)Every person who was at the time of such
\n\t      discontinuance or dissolution a partner of the
\n\t      firm  or a member of the association,  as\t the
\n\t      case  may be, shall be jointly  and  severally
\n\t      liable  for  the\tamount\tof  tax\t or  penalty
\n\t\t\t    payable,  and all the provisions of Chapter\t I
\nV
\n\t      so  far  as may be, shall apply  to  any\tsuch
\n\t      assessment or imposition or penalty.’
\nUnamended Section 44, it is evident, covered two situations:
\n(1) where any business, profession or vocation carried on by
\na  firm or association of persons was discontinued  and\t (2)
\nWhen as association of persons was dissolved.  In either  of
\nthese  situations,  every  person who at the  time  of\tsuch
\ndiscontinuance or dissolution was a partner of such firm  or
\nmember\tof such association was made jointly  and  severally
\nliable\tto  assessment under Chapter IV in  respect  of\t the
\nincome, profits and gains of the firm or association, as the
\ncase  may be.  The joint and several liability\textended  to
\nthe payment of the tax held payable.  All the provisions  of
\nChapter IV, so far as the case may be, were made  applicable
\nfor such assessment.\n<\/p>\n
In  this case, we are dealing with the situation  where\t the
\ndissolution  of the firm resulted in discontinuation of\t its
\nbusiness.   We are not concerned herein with  the  situation
\nwhere  the  firm  was dissolved but  its  business  was\t not
\ndiscontinued.  It is necessary to bear this factual  premise
\nin  mind.  Indeed, on a pointed query from us,\tthe  counsel
\nfor  the  appellant stated that this was a  case  where\t the
\ndissolution  resulted  in discontinuance of  business.\t The
\nquestion  is  whether in such a case, does  not\t Section  44
\nenable\tthe Income Tax Officer to make an assessment on\t the
\ndissolved firm?\t We are of the opinion that it does.  Indeed
\nthis  aspect  is  no  longer res  integra  in  view  of\t the
\ndecisions  of  this  Court in C.A. Abraham  v.\t Income\t Tar
\nOfficer,  Kottayam & Anr.,<\/a> 41 I.T.R. 425 and Shivram  Poddar
\nv.  Income Tar Officer, Central Circle II, Calcutta &  Anr.,<\/a>
\n51 I.T.R. 823.\tIn Abraham, the firm stood dissolved on\t the
\ndeath  of a partner and the penalty under Section 28 of\t the
\nAct was imposed after its dissolution.\tIt was contended  by
\nthe  assessee  that  such  imposition  was  illegal,   which
\ncontention was negatived with reference to unamended Section\n<\/p>\n
44.  That was also a case where the business of the firm was
\ndiscontinued because of the dissolution.\n<\/p>\n
651<\/span><\/p>\n
The  purport of Section 44 was stated by Shah, J.,  speaking
\nfor the Ben in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section\t44 sets up machinery  for  assessing
\n\t      the   tax\t  liability  of\t firms\t which\t had
\n\t      discontinued  their business and provides\t for
\n\t      three consequences,
\n\t      (1)that\ton  the\t discontinuance\t of   the
\n\t      business\tof a firm, every person who  was  at
\n\t      the  time of its discontinuance a\t partner  is
\n\t      liable in respect of income, profits and gains
\n\t      of  the  firm  to\t be  assessed  jointly\t and
\n\t      severally\t (2) each partner is liable  to\t pay
\n\t      the amount of tax payable by the firm, and (3)
\n\t      that  the provision of Chapter IV, so  far  as
\n\t      may be, apply to such assessment…..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  effect,  the Legislature  had\t enacted  by
\n\t      Section 44 that the assessment proceedings may
\n\t\t\t    be\tcommenced and continued against a  firm\t o
\nf
\n\t      which   business\t is   discontinued   as\t  if
\n\t      discontinuance  has  not taken place.   It  is
\n\t      enacted  manifestly  with\t a  view  to  ensure
\n\t      continuity in the application of the machinery
\n\t      provided for assessment and imposition of\t tax
\n\t      liability\t notwithstanding  discontinuance  of
\n\t      the .business of firms.  By a fiction, firm is
\n\t      deemed  to continue after\t discontinuance\t for
\n\t      the purpose of assessment under Chapter IV.”
\nIn our opinion, the above observations squarely apply to the
\npresent\t case which is also a case where the dissolution  of
\nthe partnership firm led to discontinuance of its business.
\nTo  the same effect is the decision in Shivram Poddar.\t The
\nfirm  consisted of four partners including  Shivram  Poddar.
\nIt  was\t dissolved  in\tFebruary,  1950\t and  thereupon\t its
\nbusiness  was discontinued.  For the assessment year,  1949-
\n50,  one of the partners of the firm submitted a  return  of
\nits  income and the assessment was made on October 28,\t1952
\nin  the\t status of an unregistered firm.   Subsequently,  in
\nMarch,\t1955 notice was issued under Section 44 of  the\t Act
\nproposing to reopen the assessment ‘for the said  assessment
\nyear  whereupon Shivram Poddar approached the Calcutta\tHigh
\nCourt  for  issuance of a writ of  mandamus  commending\t the
\nIncome Tax Officer to forbear from giving effect to the said
\nnotice.\t The
\n652<\/span>
\nHigh Court dismissed the Writ Petition, whereupon the matter
\nwas  brought  to  this\tCourt.\t The  question\tarising\t for
\nconsideration was stated by Shah, J., speaking for the Bench
\nin the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The question which falls to be determined  in
\n\t      this  appeal is whether the income  earned  by
\n\t      the firm in the year ending March, 1950  could
\n\t      be  assessed  to tax under Section 44  of\t the
\n\t      Indian  Income-Tax Act, 1922, after  the\tfirm
\n\t      was dissolved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  learned Judge set out the unamended Section 44 and\t its
\nobject as adumberated in Abraham and observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 44 operates in two classes of  cases:
\n\t      where  there  is discontinuance  of  business,
\n\t      profession or vocation carried on by a firm or
\n\t      association, and where there is dissolution of
\n\t      an association.  It follows that mere dissolu-
\n\t      tion  of a firm without discontinuance of\t the
\n\t      business\twill not attract the application  of
\n\t      section 44 of the Art.  It is only where there
\n\t      is  discontinuance of business, whether  as  a
\n\t      result of dissolution or other cause, that the
\n\t      liability\t to  assessment in  respect  of\t the
\n\t      income  of the firm under Section\t 44  arises.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In the case of an association,  discontinuance
\n\t      of   business   for   whatever   cause,\t and
\n\t      dissolution with or without discontinuance  of
\n\t      business,\t will both attract section 44.\t The
\n\t      reason  for this distinction appears from\t the
\n\t      scheme  of the Income-Tax Act in its  relation
\n\t      of assessment of the income of a firm.’
\nAfter  explaining  the\tscheme of the  1922  Act  and  after
\nreferring  to  the relevant provisions in that\tbehalf,\t the
\nlearned Judge proceeded to state:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 44, is therefore, attracted only when
\n\t      the business of a firm is discontinued,  i.e.,
\n\t      when  there  is  complete\t cessation  of\t the
\n\t      business and not when there is a change in the
\n\t      ownership\t  of  the  firm,  or  in   its\t re-
\n\t      constitution, because by reconstitution of the
\n\t      firm, no change is brought in the\t personality
\n\t      of the firm and succession to the business and
\n\t      not    discontinuance    of    the    business
\n\t      results ………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      653<\/span><\/p>\n
The learned Judge concluded, on a examination of the  scheme
\nof the Act, that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “absence\tof reference to dissolution of\tfirm
\n\t      (not  resulting in discontinuance\t in  Section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      44)  in  section 44 was  therefore  a  logical
\n\t      sequel  to the provisions relating to  assess-
\n\t      ment   of\t firms\tcontained  in  Chapter\t IV,
\n\t      especially  sections 23(5), 25(1),  26(1)\t and
\n\t      (2).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  our opinion, these two decisions are conclusive  on\t the
\nquestion arising herein.  The appeals are accordingly liable
\nto fail.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the unreported decision of the Gujarat High  Court
\nis concerned, the facts of that case appear to be different.
\nIt  is\tsufficient to mention that even\t the  said  decision
\nrecognised  that where the dissolution of the firm  resulted
\nin discontinuance of its business, assessment could be\tmade
\non  the\t dissolved  firm having\t regard\t to  the  provisions
\ncontained  in  unamended  Section  44.\t This  is  what\t the
\nDivision Bench observed, i.e.:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Now  if\tthere  was  discontinuance  of\t the
\n\t      business\tof the first petitioner firm on\t its
\n\t      dissolution,  it is clear that  the  unamended
\n\t      Section 44 would have governed the question of
\n\t      assessment  of the first petitioner  firm\t and
\n\t      having regard to the decisions of the  Supreme
\n\t      Court just referred to, the Revenue would have
\n\t      been  entitled to assess the first  petitioner
\n\t      firm as a firm despite its dissolution.’
\nThe  very  same idea was repeated at a later  stage  in\t the
\nfollowing words:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “If  there is discontinuance of the  business,
\n\t      Section  44 would apply and the Revenue  would
\n\t      be  entitled to proceed to assess the firm  as
\n\t      if no dissolution had taken place. (Vide\tC-A.
\n\t      Abraham v. Income Tax Officer, Commissioner of
\n\t      Income Tax_<\/a> v. Angadi Chettiar &\tCommissioner
\n\t      of Income tax v. Rais Reddy Mallaram  (supra).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\t      But  if  there  is no  discontinuance  of\t the
\n\t      business\tand  there is succession,  the\tcase
\n\t      would   fall  within  Section   26(2).\tThat
\n\t      section,\thowever, does not enact a  provision
\n\t      enabling\tthe  Revenue to assess\ta  dissolved
\n\t\t\t    firm on its pre-dissolution
\n\t      654<\/span>
\n\t      income in case of succession.’
\nWe  are,  therefore, of the opinion that the  said  decision
\ndoes  not  lay\tdown  any  principle  contrary\tto  the\t one
\nenunciated in Abraham or Shivram Poddar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In this view of the matter, we do not think it necessary  to
\ndeal  with  the\t facts\tand  principles\t enunciated  in\t the
\ndecisions of the Bombay High Court referred to in the  order
\nunder appeal.  Suffice it to say that the decisions in\tCLT,
\nBombay v. Devidayal, 68 I.T.R. 425, Laxmidas v. CLT. Bombay.
\n72  I.T.R. 88 and the one in Nagarinal Baijnath v.  C.I.  T,
\n114 I.T.R. 133 affirm and follow the principle in Abraham.
\nFor  the above reasons, the appeal fails and is\t accordingly
\ndismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
655<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1888, 1993 SCR (2) 645 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: NAGARMAL BAIJNATH Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1993 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-21T10:57:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T10:57:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2760,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993\",\"name\":\"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T10:57:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-21T10:57:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993","datePublished":"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T10:57:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993"},"wordCount":2760,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993","name":"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T10:57:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarmal-baijnath-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagarmal Baijnath vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 March, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117893"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117893\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}