{"id":9972,"date":"1962-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962"},"modified":"2016-12-06T21:46:56","modified_gmt":"2016-12-06T16:16:56","slug":"purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962","title":{"rendered":"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 4 December, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 4 December, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1066, \t\t 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 668<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Sarkar, A.K., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPURSHOTTAMDAS THAKURDAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/12\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1066\t\t  1963 SCR  Supl. (2) 668\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\tTax-Advance payment of tax-Dividend income  deducted\nfrom  total income-If allowable-\"Deduction of income-tax  at\nthe  time  of  payment\", Meaning of-Company  paying  tax  on\ndividend-Payment  of dividend to  share-holder--Whether\t tax\ndeducted at the time of payment-Indian Income-tax Act,\t1922\n(11 of 1922), ss. 16, 18, 18-A, 49-B.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  assessee submitted his estimate of income\tfor  advance\npayment\t of tax under s. 18-A, in which he did\tnot  include\nhis dividend income.  The Income-tax Officer held that under\ns.  18-A(2)  the  assessee  was\t bound\tto  include  in\t his\nestimate,  and\tto pay advance super-tax,  on  his  dividend\nincome.\t  Since that was not done and the advance  tax\tpaid\nwas  less  than\t 800%  of  the\ttax  determined\t on  regular\nassessment,  he\t levied penal interest under s.\t 18-A(6)  in\nrespect\t of  the super-tax payable on the  dividend  income.\nThe  assessee  contended (i) that the  dividend\t income\t was\nincome\tin respect of which provision was made under  s.  18\nfor \"deduction of income-tax at the time of payment\" and  as\nsuch  s. 18-A was not applicable to it, and (ii) that  since\ns.  18(5)  was\tapplicable  to\tdividend  income  the  penal\nprovisions of s. 18-A(6) were not attracted.\nHeld,  (per  Das, Kapur and Hidayatullah,  jj.,\t Sarkar\t and\nDayal,JJ., dissenting) that s. 18(5) read with ss. 16(2) and\n49-B provided for the  deduction 'of income-tax at the\ttime\nof  payment\" in respect of dividend income and therefore  s.\n18.A did not apply to such income.  A shareholder's right to\nthe dividend arises upon its declaration.  Under the leg,-Al\nfiction\n 669\nintroduced   by\t s.  49-B,  when  dividend  is\tpaid  to   a\nshareholder  'by  a company which is assessed  to  tax,\t the\nincome-tax  (but not super-tax) in respect of such  dividend\nis  deemed to have been paid by the shareholder himself\t and\ncredit\tis  given therefore to him under s. 18(5).   If\t the\nshareholder  was deemed to have paid the tax himself at\t the\ntime  when  the company paid the dividend, the\tpayment\t was\n\"deduction of income-tax at the time of payment\" within\t the\nmeaning of s. 18-A(1).\nPer  Sarkar  and Dayal, JJ-The dividend income\tshould\thave\nbeen  included\tin  the estimate of  income  and  the  penal\ninterest  was  properly levied on  the\tassessee.   Dividend\nincome\tis not one on which tax was deducted at the time  of\npayment\t under\ts.  18.\t Payment of  tax  by  the  assessee,\nfictional or otherwise, on income received by him was not  a\ndeduction  of  tax under s. 18 by the person  who  paid\t the\nincome to the assessee. for purposes of s. 18-A there had to\nbe a deduction under s.18; deduction under other  provisions\nwas not relevant.  Under s. 18(5) credit for the tax paid by\nthe  company was to be given to the shareholder not  at\t the\ntime  of  payment of the dividend but later at the  time  of\nassessment,  Further,  the provisions of s.  18-A(6  )\twere\napplicable in respect of dividend income.  The words \"Income\nto  which  provisions of s. 18 do not apply\" in\t s.  18,A(6)\nrefer  to  that\t type of income in respect of  which  s.  18\nprovides for deduction of tax at the source and they do\t not\ninclude dividend income.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 597 of 1961.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated July 3,  1959,  of
\nthe Bombay High Court in 1. T. Reference No. 45 of 1958.
\nA.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, N. A. Palkhivala,\t     J.\t  B.
\nDaduchanji,  O.\t C.  Mathur and\t Ravinder  Narain,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
K.N.  Rajagopal\t Sastri\t and  R.  N.  Sachthey,\t for  the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
1962.\t December  4.  The  judgment  of  Das,\t Kapur\t and
\nHidayatullah, jj., was delivered by Das, J. The judgment  of
\nSarkar and Dayal, jj., was delivered by Sarkar, J.\n<\/p>\n
670<\/span><\/p>\n
S.K.  DAs,  J.-This  is an appeal  on  a  certificate  of
\nfitness granted by the High Court of Bombay under s. 66.A(2)
\nof the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.\n<\/p>\n
The  short facts giving rise to the appeal are\tthese.\t The
\noriginal assessee was Purshottamdas Thakurdas, a  well-known
\nbusinessman   of  Bombay.   He\tdied  sometime\t after\t the
\nproceedings  in\t the  High  Court  had\tterminated  and\t the
\nappellants herein are his legal representatives.  As nothing
\nturns  upon  the distinction between the  assessee  an&\t his
\nlegal  representatives in this case, we shall ignore it\t for
\nthe  purpose of this judgment.\tBy a notice issued under  s.
\n18-A(1) of the Act the Income-tax Officer concerned required
\nthe  assessee to make advance payment of tax in\t respect  of
\nthe  assessment year 1947-1948.\t On September 15, 1946,\t the
\nassessee  submitted an estimate of his income  under  sub-s,
\n(2)  of s. 18-A.  In this estimate the assessee\t showed\t his
\ntotal income at Rs. 4,64,000\/-.\t He deducted the sum of\t Rs.
\n3,64,000\/-, stated to be his dividend income, on the  ground
\nthat  s.  18  of  the Act applied  to  such  income.   After
\nclaiming  credit  for Rs. 10,000\/- on the ground  of  double
\ntaxation  relief,  the assessee estimated  the\tadvance\t tax
\npayable\t by him at Rs. 2,67,752\/-.  The\t Income-tax  Officer
\ntook the view that under s. 18-A(2) of the Act the  assessee
\nwas  bound  to include in his estimate, and to\tpay  advance
\nsuper-tax on, his dividend income.  Since that was not\tdone
\nand  the advance tax paid was less than eighty per  cent  of
\nthe  tax determined on the basis of the regular\t assessment,
\nhe levied penal interest on the assessee under sub-s. (6) of
\ns.  18-A of the Act in respect of the super-tax\t payable  on
\nthe  dividend income.  There was an appeal to the  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner who confirmed the view of the Income-
\ntax  Officer.  On a further appeal, the\t Appellate  Tribunal
\nheld by its order dated October 25, 1957, that sub-s. (6) of
\ns.  18-A did not apply to dividend income and  the  assessee
\nwas not
\n 671<\/span>
\nliable\tto  pay penal interest in respect  of  the  dividend
\nincome.\t  The  Commissioner  of\t Income\t tax,  Bombay  City,
\nrespondent before us, moved the Appellate Tribunal to  state
\na case to the High Court of Bombay on the following question
\nof law which arose out of the Tribunal’s order :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
\n\t      case,  the assessee is liable to pay  interest
\n\t      in  respect  of dividend\tincome\tas  provided
\n\t      under s. 18-A(6) of the Income-tax Act
\nThe Tribunal stated a case on the aforesaid question and the
\nreference made by the Tribunal was dealt with by a  Division
\nBench of the High Court of Bombay by its judgment dated July
\n3,  1959.  The question framed by the Tribunal was  slightly
\naltered\t by the High Court , but the alteration made is\t not
\nmaterial  for our purpose.  Mr. justice J. C. Shah  came  to
\nthe  conclusion\t that  dividend income\twas  not  income  in
\nrespect of which s. 18 made any provision “‘for deduction of
\nincome-tax  at\tthe time of payment” within the\t meaning  of
\nsub-s.\t(1)  of S. 18-A and though the phraseology  used  in
\nsub-s.\t(6)  of\t s.18A\twas  slightly  different  from\t the
\nphraseology  used  in sub s. (1) of s. 18-A,  the  two\tsub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
sections  substantially had the same meaning.\tAccordingly,
\nhe answered the question in the affirmative and against\t the
\nassessee.  Mr. justice S. T. Desai also gave the same answer
\nto  the\t question, though he reached  a\t somewhat  different
\nconclusion.  He held that on a proper construction of sub-s.
\n(6)  of\t s. 18-A an assessee was liable to pay\tinterest  in
\nrespect of tax on dividend income to the extent that  sub-s.
\n(5) of s. 18 did not apply to the same.\t He said
\n\t      “An  assessee  who  is  called  upon  to\tmake
\n\t      advance  payment of tax under s. 18-A (1)\t may
\n\t      under  sub-s.  (2) of that  section  pay\tsuch
\n\t      amount as accords with his own estimate, If he
\n\t      672<\/span>
\n\t      excludes\tthe amount of super-tax on  dividend
\n\t      income from his estimate he takes the risk  of
\n\t      the  application\tof the ratio of\t eighty\t per
\n\t      cent  resulting  in a shortfall and  he  would
\n\t      have to pay interest “upon the amount by which
\n\t      the tax so paid falls short of the said eighty
\n\t      per cent.” The eighty per cent would be of the
\n\t      amount  of tax determined on the basis of\t the
\n\t      regular assessment. so far as such tax relates
\n\t      to income to which the provisions of s. 18  do
\n\t      not  apply.  The provisions of s. 18(5)  as  I
\n\t      have  already  pointed  out do  not  apply  to
\n\t      super-tax\t and the amount of super-tax on\t the
\n\t      dividend\tincome\tmust be included  and  taken
\n\t      into   consideration   in\t  the\t computation
\n\t      necessary\t for  the  purpose  of\tfixing\t the
\n\t      quantum  of tax to which the ratio  of  eighty
\n\t      per   cent  is  to  be  applied.\t  I   would,
\n\t      therefore, answer the question as framed by us
\n\t      in the affirmative.”\n<\/p>\n
The assessee then moved the High Court for a certificate  of
\nfitness and having obtained such certificate preferred\tthis
\nappeal to this court.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the assessee, the contention is that the answer
\ngiven  by the High Court to the question referred to  it  is
\nnot  correct  and this contention is based on  two  grounds.
\nThe first ground is that on a proper construction of  sub-s.
\n(2)  of s. 16, sub-s. (5) of s. 18 and s. 49-B of  the\tAct,
\ndividend  income is income in respect of which provision  is
\nmade  under s. 18 for “‘deduction of income-tax at the\ttime
\nof  payment” and therefore s. 18-A is not attracted  to\t it.
\nThe second ground which has been taken in the alternative is
\nthat sub-s. (6) of s. 18-A clearly states that where in\t any
\nyear an assessee has paid tax under sub-s. (2) on the  basis
\nof his own estimate and the tax so paid is less than  eighty
\nper  cent of the tax determined on the basis of the  regular
\nassessment, so far as such tax relates to income
\n673<\/span>
\nto  which  the\tprovisions of s. 18  do\t not  apply,  simple
\ninterest  at the rate of; six per cent per annum etc.  shall
\nbe payable by the assessee upon the amount by which the\t tax
\nso  paid  falls\t short of the said eighty per  cent,  It  is
\nsubmitted that thephraseology  used in sub. s. (6)  of\ts.
\n18-A is “to whichthe  provisions of s. 18 do  not  apply.
\nThealternative\targument  is that sub-s. (5) of s.  18\tis
\nundoubtedly a provision which applies to dividend income and
\ntherefore  under sub-s. (6) of\t   s. 18-A the assessee\t was
\nnot  liable to\t  pay penal interest by his failure  to\t pay
\nadvance\t tax On that head of income.  Put  differently,\t the
\nalternative argument is that sub-s. (6) of s. 18-A refers to
\na category of income wider than what is referred to in\tsub-
\ns.  (1) of s. 18-A and if there is some provision in  s.  18
\nrelating  to  a\t head of income,  namely,  dividend  income,
\n(though\t that  provision  may not  amount  to  deduction  of
\nincome-tax at the time of payment’), failure to pay  advance
\ntax-  on  that head of account will not\t attract  the  penal
\nprovisions of sub-s. (6) of s. 18-A.\n<\/p>\n
We  proceed now to consider these two arguments advanced  on
\nbehalf\tof the appellants and the replies thereto on  behalf
\nof the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
First  as to the argument that on a, proper construction  of
\nsub-s. (2) of s. 16, sub-s. (5) of s. 1 8 and s. 49-B of the
\nAct, dividend income is income in respect of which provision
\nis made under s. 18 for “deduction of income-tax at the time
\nof  payment.”  To appreciate this argument it  is  necessary
\nfirst to refer to the scheme of ss. 18 and 18-A of the\tAct.
\nUnder  the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, tax is assessed\t and
\npaid in the succeeding year upon the results of the previous
\nyear of account.  The legislature has by enactings.   18-A,
\nmade a provision for imposing a liability uponthe   tax-
\npayers who had\t    been previously assessedand\t even  upon
\nthose who had  not   been so assessedto\t  make\t  advance
\npayment of
\n674<\/span>
\ntax  in respect of income, exceeding a certain\tamount,\t for
\nwhich provision is not made under s. 18 for deduction of tax
\nat  the\t time  of payment.  Sections  18  and  18-A  between
\nthemselves  exhaust all categories of taxable  income.\t The
\nAct  provides  for two modes of collecting  taxes  …direct
\nlevy  and  levy by  deduction at the source.   The  ordinary
\nmethod\tof collection is-direct collection of the  tax\tfrom
\nthe  assessee  which is dealt with by.\tss.,19,\t 45  and-46.
\nDeduction  of  tax  at the source is provided  for  only  in
\ncertain\t specified cases mentioned in s. 18.  Sub-s. (2)  of
\ns. 18 relates to salaries and makes the, person\t responsible
\nfor paying any income chargeable under the head salaries” to
\nmake  deduction\t of income-tax and super-tax on\t the  amount
\npayable\t at  a rate representing the average  of  the  rates
\napplicable  to\tthe estimated total income of  the  assessee
\nunder  that  head.   Sub-s.  (3)  relates  to  interest\t  on
\nsecurities  and makes the person responsible for paying\t any
\nincome chargeableunder\t  the\thead\t“,,interest    on
\nsecurities”.. unless otherwise prescribed in the case of any
\nsecurity of the Central Government, to deduct at the time of
\npayment\t income-tax  but  not super-tax\t on  the  amount  of
\ninterest payable at the maximum rate.  Sub-ss. (3-A) to\t (3-
\nE) relate to certain other cases which are not very material
\nfor our purpose.  We need not therefore refer to those\tsub-
\nsections.  Sub.\t S. (4) of s. 18 says that all sums deducted
\nin accordance with the provisions of this section shall, for
\npurposes  of computing the income of an assessee, be  deemed
\nto be income received.\tThen there is sub-s. (5) which in so
\nfar as it is relevant for our purpose is in these terms
\n\t      “Any deduction made and paid to the account of
\n\t      the Central Government in accordance with\t the
\n\t      provisions of this section and any sum which a
\n\t      dividend has been increased under\t sub-section
\n\t      (2)  of  section\t16 shall  be  treated  as  a
\n\t      payment of income.-tax or super-tax on behalf
\n\t       675<\/span>
\n\t      of the person from whose income the  deduction
\n\t      was  made, or of the owner of the security  or
\n\t      of  the shareholder, as the case may  be,\t and
\n\t      credit  shall be given to him therefor on\t the
\n\t      production of the certificate, furnished under
\n\t      subsection (9) or section 30, as the case\t may
\n\t      be  in  the assessment, if any, made  for\t the
\n\t      following year under,this Act
\n\t      Provided\tthat, if such person or\t such  owner
\n\t      obtains, in accordance with the provisions  of
\n\t      this  Act, a refund of any portion of the\t tax
\n\t      so deducted, no credit shall be given for\t the
\n\t      amount of such refund:\n<\/p>\n
\t      xx   xx\t  xx\t  xx
\n\t      xx xx xx xx
\nPut briefly, the scheme of s. 18 is to provide for deduction
\nof income-tax at the source in respect of certain categories
\nof  income.  With regard to two of the\tcategories,  namely,
\n“”salaries”  and  “interest  on\t securities,  there  is\t  no
\ndifficult.   The  difficulty  arises  with  regard  to\t the
\ncategory  of  income, referred. to in  sub-s.(5)  of  s.18,:
\nnamely,\t dividend  income, and to this difficulty  we  shall
\ncome later.\n<\/p>\n
S.18-A\twhich  was inserted in 1944  deals  with  advance
\npayment of tax.\t It was introduced as a war measure probably
\nto  combat  inflation, but, like many other  innovations  in
\ntaxation  legislation  it has outlived\tthe  exigency  which
\nnecessitated  it.   The section applies to  those  assessees
\nwhose  total  income in the latest assessment, and  also  to
\nthose hitherto unassessed whose total income of the previous
\nyear,  exceeded\t by  a certain sum the\tmaximum\t amount\t not
\nchargeable  to tax.  The section attempts to  reconcile\t the
\nprinciple of advance payment of tax with the ,scheme of\t the
\nAct  which is to tax the income of the previous\t year.\t The
\nbasis of the section is the
\n676<\/span>
\nprinciple  of  “”pay as you  earn that is,  paying  tax\t ‘by
\ninstalments  in\t respect of the income of the very  year  in
\nwhich the tax is paid.\tSub.s. (1) provides for the  payment
\nof  tax\t in respect of the income of ” the  latest  previous
\nyear” while under sub.s. (II) the tax so paid is treated  as
\nhaving\tbeen  paid in respect of the income of the  year  of
\npayment and credit therefore is given to the assessee in the
\nregular\t assessment  made in the next financial\t year.\t The
\n‘advance”  payment ‘of taxis only provisional, and if  after
\nthe  regular assessment is made the tax paid in\t advance  is
\nfound to be in excess of the tax payable, the assessee would
\nbe  entitled  to a refund of such excess.   Further,  it  is
\nworthy of note that the provision for advance payment of tax
\nunder  s. 18-A is only in respect of income from  which\t the
\ntax is not deductible at the source, under s. 18.  Where the
\ntax  is deductible at the source, that in itself amounts  to
\nadvance payment of tax and therefore such income is left out
\nof  the\t purview  of the section.  Sub-s.  (2)\tof  s.\t18-A
\nenables\t an  assessee  to make his own estimate\t if  in\t his
\nopinion,  the income of the year is likely to be  less\tthan
\nthat  on which he has been asked to make advance payment  of
\ntax’  in accordance with the provisions contained in  sub-s.
\n(1).  Sub-s. (6) of S. 18-A so far as it is material for our
\npurpose is in these terms
\n\t      “Where  in any year an assessee has  paid\t tax
\n\t      under  sub-section (2) or sub-section  (3)  on
\n\t      the basis of his own estimate, and the tax  so
\n\t      paid  is less than eighty per cent of the\t tax
\n\t      determined   on  the  basis  of  the   regular
\n\t      assessment,  so  far as such  tax\t relates  to
\n\t      income  to which the provisions of section  18
\n\t      do  not apply and so far as it it not  due  to
\n\t      variations  in  the rates of tax made  by\t the
\n\t      Finance Act enacted for the year for which the
\n\t      regular assessment is made, simple interest at
\n\t      the  rate of six per cent per annum  from\t the
\n\t      1st day of January in the financial
\n\t       677<\/span>
\n\t      year in which the tax was paid up to the\tdate
\n\t      of  the  said  regular  assessment  shall\t  be
\n\t      payable  by  the assessee upon the  amount  by
\n\t      which the tax so paid falls short of the\tsaid
\n\t      eighty per cent
\n xx   xx    xx
\n xx   xx   xx
\n xx   xx   XX.\n<\/p>\n
It provides for cases where the assesee’s estimate turns out
\nto  be\ttoo low and it lays down inter alia that  where\t an,
\nassessee  has  paid  advance tax under sub-s.  (2)  and\t the
\namount\tso  paid is less than eighty per cent of  the  final
\nassessment  of\this income for the particular  year,  he  is
\nliable\tto pay interest at six per cent.  There\t is  however
\nthe  necessary qualification that this is in the context  of
\n“income to which the provisions of s. 18 do not apply.\t“‘
\nHaving\tregard-\t to the scheme of ss. 18 and  18A  explained
\nabove, the first question before us is this: can it be\tsaid
\nthat sub-s. (5) of s. 18 in its true scope and effect treats
\ndividend income as income from which a deduction of  income-
\ntax  has been made at the time of payment of the dividend  ?
\nThe contention on behalf of the assessee is that sub-s.\t (5)
\nof s. 18 read with sub-s. (2) of s. 16 and s. 49-B has\tthat
\n‘effect.   The argument on behalf of the respondent is\tthat
\nit has not that effect.\t In our opinion the contention urged
\non  behalf of the assessee is correct.\tSub.s. (2) of s.  16
\ndeclares  in the first part thereof that any dividend  shall
\nbe deemed to be income of the year in which it is paid\tetc.
\nregardless  of the question as, to when the profits  out  of
\nwhich  the  dividend is paid were earned.   A  shareholder’s
\nright  to dividend arises upon its declaration.\t  Under\t the
\nsecond part of the sub-section, the net dividend paid to the
\nshareholder  is to be “,grossed up” before in.,\t clusion  in
\nthe shareholder’s total income, by adding
\n678<\/span>
\nthereto\t the amount of income-tax paid by the  company.\t  In
\ngeneral law the company is chargeable to tax on its  profits
\nas  a  distinct\t taxable  entity and  it  pays\tthe  tax  in
\ndischarge  of its own liability and not on behalf of  or  as
\nagent  for its shareholder-.  This aspect of the matter\t has
\nbeen   rightly\temphasised  by\tlearned\t counsel   for\t the
\nrespondent in his reply.  While it is true that the  company
\npays  its own tax, a legal fiction is introduced by s.\t49-B
\nof the Act.  Under that section when a dividend is paid to a
\nshareholder  by\t a  company which is assessed  to  tax,\t the
\nincome-tax  (but not super-tax) in respect of such  dividend
\nis deemed to have been paid by the shareholder himself Since
\nthe income-tax in respect of the dividend is deemed under s.
\n49-B to have by been paid by the shareholder himself on\t his
\nown income, though in reality it was tax paid by the company
\nin discharge of its own liability, credit is given therefore
\nto the share. holder in the assessment, under sub-s. (5)  of
\ns. 18.\tHe is not liable to pay income-tax again in  respect
\nof  the dividend and may claim a refund under s. 48, if\t the
\nmaximum\t  rate\tof  income-tax,\t which\tis   applicable\t  to
\ncompanies,  is not applicable to him The combined effect  of
\nsub-s. (2) of s. 16, s. 49B and sub-s. (5) of s. 18 is\tthat
\nthe tax-free dividend is not really a dividend of the amount
\nreceived,  but\ta  dividend of a larger\t sum  less  the\t tax
\nthereon,  and as in the case of tax-free salaries  and\ttax-
\nfree securities, it is the gross amount which is included in
\nthe shareholder’s total income, because the income-tax\tpaid
\nby  the company remains part of the income derived from\t the
\nshareholding.  If  this be the true effect  of\tthe  section
\nreferred  to  above, then s. 18 in sub-s. (5)  does  provide
\n“‘for deduction of income-tax at the time of payment” within
\nthe meaning of that clause in sub-s. (1) of s. 18-A.
\nLearned\t counsel for the respondent has, however, drawn\t our
\nattention to that part of subs. (5) of s.    IS which refers
\nto ‘,any deduction made and paid to
\n679<\/span>
\nthe account of the Central Government in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this section” and “any sum by which a dividend
\nhas been increased under sub-s. (2) of s. 16.” His  argument
\nis that the sub-section talks of two different matters : one
\nis deduction of tax referred to in the earlier\tsub-sections
\nand  the other is addition of a sum to the dividend.   These
\ntwo,  according\t to learned counsel, stand  on\ta  different
\nfooting; one is in reality “‘deduction of income-tax at\t the
\ntime  of  payment” and the other, namely, the sum  added  to
\ndividend  income  under sub-s. (2) of s. 16, is\t not  really
\n“‘deduction  of\t income-tax at the time of payment”  but  is
\nincluded in the sub-section merely for the purpose of giving
\ncredit\tto  the shareholder for the amount  which  has\tbeen
\nadded to his dividend.\tWe are of opinion that this line  of
\nargument  does\tnot give full effect to\t the  legal  fiction
\ncreated\t by s. 49-B under which the tax paid by the  company
\nis  deemed to have been paid by the shareholder\t himself  in
\nrespect\t of his dividend income grossed up under sub-s.\t (2)
\nof s. 16.  If the shareholder is deemed to have paid the tax
\nhimself\t at the time when the company.paid the dividend,  we
\ndo not see why this payment is not “‘deduction of income-tax
\nat the time of payment” within the meaning of that clause in
\nsub-s.\t(1)  of s. 18A.\t Deduction at the source is  only  a
\nmode of collecting tax from the person from whose income the
\ndeduction is made-.  The tax paid by the company at the time
\nof payment of the dividend is treated as part of the  income
\nof  the shareholder and the gross amount has to be  included
\nin his total income; on the same principle, the tax deducted
\nat  the\t source\t and paid to the Government  is\t treated  as
\nhaving been paid by the shareholder himself.  In this  view
\nof the matter, sub-s. (5) merely works out the principle  of
\nsub-s.\t(41  of\t s. 18, namely, that all  sums\tdeducted  in
\naccordance with the provisions of the section shall, for the
\npurpose of computing the income of an assessee, be deemed to
\nbe income received.\n<\/p>\n
680<\/span><\/p>\n
There was some argument before us as to the omission of\t the
\nword “shareholder” in the first proviso to sub-s. (5) of  s.\n<\/p>\n
18.   The Amending Act of 1939 which added the reference  to
\nthe  “‘shareholder”  in\t the substantive part  of  the\tsub-
\nsection\t did  not  make similar addition to  the  first\t two
\nprovisos; whether this was an over-sight, as one commentator
\nhas  said, or not is not a matter which need be\t decided  in
\nthis case.  We have rested our conclusion on the substantive
\npart of sub-s. (5).\n<\/p>\n
In  the view which we have taken on the main argument  urged
\non behalf of the appellant, s. 18-A is not attracted to\t the
\ndividend income of the assessee in this case.  The  assessee
\nwas not therefore liable to penal interest under sub-s.\t (6)
\nof  s. 18-A.  It becomes unnecessary, therefore,  to  decide
\nthis case on the alternative argument presented on behalf of
\nthe  appellant which is based on the phraseology  of  sub-s.
\n(6).   We  need\t only point out that  sub-s.  (6)  uses\t the
\nphraseology “income to which the provisions of s. 18 do\t not
\napply.” It is difficult to see how it can be said that\tsub-
\ns.  (5)\t of s. 18 does not “apply” to dividend\tincome.\t  It
\nrefers to dividend income in express terms.  The argument on
\nbehalf\tof the respondent is that sub-s. (6) of s. 18A\twill
\nbe  unworkable in the matter of dividend income., unless  it
\nhas the same meaning as in sub s. (1).\tLearned counsel\t has
\nrelied\ton  two decisions of this court\t :  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax  v.\tTeja Singh<\/a> (1) and Gursahai  Saigal  v.\t The
\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Punjab<\/a> (2).\t The first  decision
\nlays down that in construing the scope of a legal fiction it
\nwould be proper and even necessary to assume all those facts
\non  which the fiction can operate…… a decision which  is
\nreally\tagainst\t the respondent on the main  argument.\t The
\nsecond\tdecision  related  to  sub-s. (8)  of  s.  18-A\t and
\nproceeded on the rule that it is proper to give a  machinery
\nprovision an interpretation which makes it workable.  We  do
\nnot think that sub-s. (6)
\n(1) [1959] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 394.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1963] 48 I.T.R. 1.\n<\/p>\n
681<\/span><\/p>\n
of  s.\t18-A  will be unworkable, even if it  refers  to  an
\nincome\twider  in category than that referred to  in  sub-s.
\n(1).\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tunnecessary,  however, to go into  this\t point\tmore
\nelaborately.   Our  conclusion is that sub-s. (5) of  s.  18
\nread  with  sub-s.  (2) of s. 16 and s.\t 49-B  provides\t for
\n“‘deduction of income-tax at the time of payment” in respect
\nof dividend income; therefore,
\ns.   18-A does not apply to such income.\n<\/p>\n
We  would  accordingly\tallow this  appeal,  set  aside\t the
\njudgment of the High Court, and answer the question referred
\nto  the\t High  Court in the negative and in  favour  of\t the
\nassessee: The appellants will be entitled to their costs  of
\nthis court an in the High Court;\n<\/p>\n
  SARKAR, J.-Under.the Income-tax Act, 1922, the usual\trule
\nis  to charge tax for a year on the income of  the  previous
\nyear.\tSection 18A of the Act makes a departure  from\tthis
\nusual rule and provides for advance payment of tax, that is,
\npayment of tax on income during the year in which the income
\nis  earned.   The  question  in this appeal  is\t as  to\t the
\ninterpretation of certain provisions in s. 18A and of a\t few
\nother sections of the Act.  The contention advanced in\tthis
\ncase  can  be appreciated only after these  provisions\thave
\nbeen referred to.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (1) of s. 18A states, “In the case of income  in
\nrespect of which provision is not made under section 18\t for
\ndeduction of income-tax at the time of payment, the  Income-
\ntax   Officer  may………  require  an  assessee  to\t pay
\nquarterly…………………\t an  amount  equal  to\t one
\nquarter\t of the income-tax and super-tax payable on so\tmuch
\nof  such  income as is included in his total income  of\t the
\nlatest\tprevious  year\tin  respect of\twhich  he  has\tbeen
\nassessed.” This liability to pay arises only however if\t the
\ntotal income of the latest previous year exceeds a certain
\n682<\/span>
\namount mentioned in the subsection.  Under this sub-section,
\ntherefore, the amount demanded as payment of tax in  advance
\nis calculated on income found in a previous assessment.\t Now
\nit  may so happen that the assessee thinks that\t his  income
\nfor  the period for which the demand had been made would  be
\nless  than  his income in that\tprevious  assessment.\tSub-
\nsection\t (2) provides that in such a case the  assessee\t may
\n“send  to  the\tIncome-tax Officer an estimate\tof  the\t tax
\npayable\t by him…………… and shall pay such amount  as
\naccords\t     with      his\testimate      in       equal
\ninstalments…………….. So under sub-s.(2) the assessee
\nis  given  the liberty to make his own estimate of  the\t tax
\npayable in advance instead of paying according to a previous
\nregular\t assessment by the revenue authorities.\t As  in\t the
\ncase of sub-s. (1), in making the estimate of the tax  under
\nsub-s. (2), the assessee is only to take into account income
\nin  respect of which provision is not made under s.  18\t for
\ndeduction of income-tax at the time of payment.\t Sub-section
\n(3) provides for the case of an assessee who has never\tbeen
\nassessed  before but whose total income is likely to  exceed
\nthe amount upon which tax is payable in advance under sub-s.
\n(1). it requires such an assessee to “send to the Income-tax
\nOfficer an estimate of the tax payable by him on that art of
\nhis  income to which the provisions of S. 18 do not  apply”,
\nand  to\t pay that amount on certain specified  dates.\tHere
\nalso the assessee makes his own assessment.  Payment of\t tax
\nin advance under sub-ss. (1), (2) or (3) is only provisional
\nand the assessee would be entitled to a refund if on regular
\nassessment after the year it is found that he had paid\tmore
\nthan  he is liable to pay; or he may be called upon  to\t pay
\nmore if he had ‘paid less than what is due from him.
\nAs the responsibility for making the assessments under\tsub-
\nss.  (2) and (3) is on the assessee, sub-s. (6) is  intended
\nto provide a machinery whereby the
\n 683<\/span>
\nassessee is put under a certain disadvantage if it is  found
\nthat his estimate is erroneous beyond a certain limit.\tThis
\nappeal\tturns  largely on this sub-section and,\t so  far  as
\nrelevant, it is in these terms
\n\t      “Where  in any year an assessee has  paid\t tax
\n\t      under  sub-section (2) or sub-section  (3)  on
\n\t      the basis of his own estimate, and the tax  so
\n\t      paid  is less than eighty percent of  the\t tax
\n\t      determined   on  the  basis  of  the   regular
\n\t      assessment,  so  far as such  tax\t relates  to
\n\t      income  to which the provisions of section  18
\n\t      do  not  apply……………………  simple
\n\t      interest\tat  the\t rate  of  six\tpercent\t per
\n\t      annum……………  shall be payable by\t the
\n\t      assessee\tupon the amount by which the tax  so
\n\t      paid falls short of the said eighty per cent.”
\nThis  sub-section also prescribes the period for  which\t the
\ninterest payable under it is to be calculated but it is\t not
\nnecessary  to  trouble ourselves with such  period  in\tthis
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
Now, Purshottamdas Thakurdas, the assessee in\t  this case,
\nsent an estimate under sub-s. (2) of, s.     18A of the\t tax
\npayable\t by  him in advance in the year\t 1947-48.   In\tthat
\nestimate he did not include the dividends received on shares
\nheld by him.  Upon regular assessment it was found that\t the
\ntax  estimated by him was less than eighty per cent  of\t the
\nregular assessment and on this shortfall he was held  liable
\nto  pay interest under sub-s. (6) of s. 18A.  The  shortfall
\nwould  not  have  arisen  if  the  assessee  had  taken\t the
\ndividends  into\t account in making the estimate of  the\t tax
\npayable by him.\t Against this decision the assessee appealed
\nto  the\t Appellate  Assistant Commissioner  but\t his  appeal
\nfailed.\t He then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribu-
\nnal  and was successful there.\tThereafter, at the  instance
\nof  the respondent Commissioner of Income-tax, the  Tribunal
\nreferred under s. 66 (1) of the Act
\n84<\/span>
\nthe following questions for the decision of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
\n\t      case the assessee is liable to pay interest in
\n\t      respect  of dividend income as provided  under
\n\t      Section 18A(6) of the Income-tax Act?.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High  Court answered the question\tin  the\t affirmative
\nthough\t the   reasons\tupon  which   the   learned   judges
\nconstituting  the bench deciding the case  based  themselves
\nwere somewhat different.  The assessee has now come to\tthis
\nCourt  in  further  appeal.  Pending the  appeal  here,\t the
\nassessee  died\tand  his  legal\t representatives  have\tbeen
\nsubstituted in his place and are the appellants now.
\nThe  real question in, this appeal is whether in  making  an
\nestimate  under\t s. 18A (2) of the tax payable by  him,\t the
\nassessee  should  have\ttaken  into  account  the  dividends
\nreceived  by him.  Now, it is not in dispute that in  making
\nthis  estimate\tonly  that  income  “in\t respect  of   which
\nprovision  is not made under s. 18 for deduction of  income-
\ntax  at\t the time of payment” is to be taken  into  account.
\nLearned counsel for the appellants contends that dividend is
\nincome in respect of which provision is made under s. 18 for
\ndeduction  of  income-tax at the time of payment.   If\tthis
\ncontention  is sound, then of course no interest is  payable
\nunder s. 18A (6).\n<\/p>\n
Now,  the appellants’ contention was based on sub-s. (2)  of
\ns. 16, sub-s. (5) of s. 18 and s. 49B of the Act.  The first
\nof  these, that is, sub-s. (2) of  s. 16, says that for\t the
\npurpose\t of inclusion in the total income of an assessee,  a
\ndividend  shall be deemed to be income of the previous\tyear
\nin  which  it is paid and shall be increased  in  a  certain
\nmanner, and without going into the question of the  increase
\nin great detail, which would be unnecessary for the
\n685<\/span>
\npurposes of this case, it would perhaps be right to say that
\nthe increase is to be substantially by such amount as  would
\nbe payable by the company as income-tax on the amount of the
\ndividend at the rate applicable to it in the financial\tyear
\nin  which  the dividend is paid.  Sub-section (5) of  s.  18
\nprovides.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Any deduction made and paid to the account of
\n\t      the Central Government in accordance with\t the
\n\t      provisions  of  this section and\tany  sum  by
\n\t      which a dividend has been increased under sub-
\n\t      section (2) of section 16 shall be treated  as
\n\t      a payment of income-tax or super-tax on behalf
\n\t      of the person from whose income the  deduction
\n\t      was  made, or of the owner of the security  or
\n\t      of  the shareholder, as the case may  be,\t and
\n\t      credit  shall be given to him therefor on\t the
\n\t      production of the certificate furnished  under
\n\t      sub-section (9) or section 20, as the case may
\n\t      be,  in the assessment, if any, made  for\t the
\n\t      following year under this Act;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Lastly,\t s.  49B states that “Where any\t dividend  has\tbeen
\npaid………  or deemed to have been paid…… to  any  of
\nthe   persons\tspecified   in\t Section   3   who   is\t   a
\nshareholder….\t …such  person shall, if the\tdividend  is
\nincluded  in his total income, be deemed in respect of\tsuch
\ndividend  himself to have paid the income-tax (exclusive  of
\nsuper-tax)  of\tan  amount equal to the\t sum  by  which\t the
\ndividend had been increased under sub-section (2) of section\n<\/p>\n
16.”\n<\/p>\n
Now,   the  contention\tof  the\t learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants  is that as a result of the two  provisions\tlast
\nreferred  to,  there  is a fictional  deduction\t of  tax  on
\ndividends  which  fiction  must\t be  given  effect  to\tand,
\ntherefore, in making an estimate of income under s. 18A\t (2)
\ndividends have to be excluded and
\n686<\/span>
\nthey have to be treated in view of the fiction, as income in
\nrespect\t of  which  tax has been deducted  at  the  time  of
\npayment.\n<\/p>\n
We  are wholly unable to accept this argument All  that\t the
\nprovisions  on which the learned counsel for the  appellants
\nrelies, show is that a shareholder who received dividends on
\nhis  shares is entitled in his assessment to have a  certain
\nsum.. paid or payable as tax by the company, treated as paid
\nas tax on his behalf and to require that sum to be deemed to
\nhave been paid as tax by himself.  We are not concerned with
\npayment\t of  tax by or on behalf of the\t assessee.   We\t are
\nconcerned with income, income-tax on which has been deducted
\nat  the\t time  of payment by the payer of it  under  s.\t 18.
\nPayment\t of  tax  by the assessee or on his  behalf  is\t not
\ndeduction of tax on the income by the payer of that  income.
\nWe  are\t wholly unable to agree that payment of tax  by\t the
\nassessee, fictional or otherwise, on income received by\t him
\nis in any sense a deduction of tax under s. 19 by the person
\nwho  pays the income to the assessee.  Clearly there  is  no
\ndeduction as contemplated by s. 18.  We do not see that\t ss.
\n16  (2), 18(5), and 49B require any fiction of\ta  deduction
\nunder  s.  18 to be raised.  Indeed s. 18(5)  by  mentioning
\nexpressly and separately “Any deduction\t made……………
\nin  accordance with…………………. this section”\t and
\n“‘any sum by which a dividend has been increased under\tsub-
\nsection\t (2)  of  section  16”\tshows  that  these  two\t are
\ndifferent, or, in other words, that the increased amount  is
\nnot  a\tdeduction  under s. 18.\t It  is\t important  also  to
\nremember  that for s. 18A(1), (2) and (3) there has to be  a
\ndeduction  under  s.  18 to exclude a part  of\tthe  income;
\ndeduction under other provisions will not do.
\nThen again, under s. 18(5) an assessee is entitled to credit
\nfor the amount to be added to the dividend under s. 16(2) as
\ntax paid on his behalf
\n687<\/span>
\nbut  this only at the time of the assessment, if  any..\t for
\nthe  following\tyear.  Obviously, there is  no\tquestion  of
\ngiving\tany  credit till assessment later, that is  to\tsay,
\nlater  than  the  time of payment of  the  dividend  to\t the
\nassessee.  This again shows-that dividends are not income in
\nrespect of which tax is deducted under s. 18 at the time  of
\npayment.   We  would  also point out that  if  there  is  no
\nassessment  of the assessee, then no tax can be\t treated  as
\nhaving\tbeen paid by him.  The position under s. 49B is\t the
\nsame.\tIf  tax is deducted at the source under\t s.  18,  it
\nwould  be deducted in all cases and the deduction would\t not
\ndepend\ton  any assessment.  This is a\tfurther\t reason\t for
\nsaying\tthat  dividends\t are  not income  on  which  tax  is
\ndeducted at the time of payment under s. 18.
\nThe  appellants then contend that even if dividends are\t not
\nincome\tfrom which tax is deducted at the time\tof  payment,
\nstill no interest is chargeable in this case under s. 18A(6)
\nfor  another  reason.  It was said that in finding  out\t the
\nshortfall under subs. (6) of s. 18A you have to compare\t the
\namount\tof tax paid by an assessee on his own estimate\twith
\nthe  amount  of tax ascertained on  the\t regular  assessment
\ntaking into account only that part of the income “‘to  which
\nthe  provisions\t of section 18 do not apply.”  Hence  it  is
\ncontended that in ascertaining for the purpose of this\tsub-
\nsection\t the tax payable on regular assessment that part  of
\nthe assessee’s income should be kept out of consideration to
\nwhich the provisions of S. 18 apply.  Then it is pointed out
\nthat  sub-s. (5) of that section applies to income  received
\nin  the shape of dividends.  Therefore, in finding  out\t the
\namount of tax payable on regular assessment under sub-s. (6)
\nof  s. 18A, dividends have to be kept out of account and  if
\nthat  is  done, then the shortfall would disappear.   It  is
\ntrue  that if the dividends were excluded from\tthe  regular
\nassessment  as\talso the estimate, then there  would  be  no
\nshortfall.\n<\/p>\n
688<\/span><\/p>\n
Now,  it seems to us that this argument is fallacious.\t The
\nwords  are  “”tax  determined on the basis  of\tthe  regular
\nassessment,  so far as such tax relates to income  to  which
\nthe  provisions\t of s. 18 do not apply”.   Obviously,  these
\nwords  refer  to tax on income of a  certain  type,  namely,
\nincome\tof any one of the different varieties  mentioned  in
\nany  of the provisions in s. 18.  Only income of such  types
\nis to be left out of consideration for the purpose of making
\nthe regular assessment under s. 18A (6).  Let us turn to  s.\n<\/p>\n
18.   It  consists of a very large number  of  sub-sections.
\nSub-section (1) has been omitted.  We may also leave out  of
\nconsideration  sub-ss. (2A), (2B), (4) and (6) to  (9),\t for
\nthey  do not deal with any particular kind of  income  which
\nhas not been dealt with in the other sections.\tEach of\t the
\nrest  of the sub-sections, excepting sub-s. (5), deals\twith
\ndeduction  of tax at the source from one particular kind  of
\nincome.\t In some of the cases, both income-tax and super-tax
\nare  deducted while in others, only income-tax is  deducted.
\nIt  is\tnot necessary to discuss this  distinction  for\t the
\npurpose of this judgment.  We will now have to refer to\t the
\nvarious sub-sections dealing with deductions from  different
\nkinds of income.  Sub-section (2) deals with deduction\tfrom
\nsalaries,  sub-s.  (3 ) from interest on securities  in\t the
\ncase  of residents, sub-s. (3A) from interest on  securities
\nin the case of non-residents, sub-s. (3B) from interest\t not
\nbeing  interest\t on securities or any other  sum  chargeable
\nunder  the  provisions\tof  this Act in\t the  case  of\tnon-
\nresidents,  sub-s. (30) from any sum chargeable\t under\tthis
\nAct other than interest payable to a non-resident and sub-s.
\n(3D) from dividends payable to nonresidents.  As the section
\nstood at the relevant time, there was no provision in it for
\ndeduction  of income-tax from dividends paid to\t a  resident
\nshareholder.   Indeed, it is because of this that  all\tthis
\nargument  has arisen.  Sub-section (5), it would  have\tbeen
\nnoticed,  does\tnot deal with any particular  or  individual
\ntype of income but it deals
\n689<\/span>
\nwith  all the various kinds of income mentioned\t earlier  as
\nalso  with dividends payable to a resident.   Therefore,  it
\nseems  to  us  that this sub-section is\t not  one  of  those
\nprovisions in s. 18 which is contemplated in s. 18A (6).  It
\ndoes  not particularise any kind of income which has  to  be
\nkept out of account in considering the amount due on regular
\nassessment  under  sub-s. (6) of s. 18A.  It  seems  to\t us,
\ntherefore,  that  the  words in that  subsection  now  under
\ndiscussion  refer to the provisions of s. 18  which  specify
\nparticular kinds of income and provide for deduction of\t tax
\nfrom them.\n<\/p>\n
It is clear that any other view of the matter would  produce
\nanomalous  results which could not have been  intended.\t  In
\nthe  view that we have taken on the first contention of\t the
\nappellants,  it is obvious that under sub-s. (1) of  s.\t 18A
\ndividend  income  cannot  be left out  of  account  for\t the
\npurpose of calculating tax payable in advance.\tUnder sub-s.
\n(2)  the position ‘is the same.\t Now if sub-s. (2)  requires
\ndividend  income  to  be taken into  account  in  making  an
\nestimate,  then\t how is that requirement to be\tenforced  if
\ninterest under sub-s. (6) is not made payable on the failure
\nto take dividends into account.\t Question of interest  under
\nsub-s.\t(6) arises only on regular assessment.\t The  amount
\nfound due on regular assessment can be realised in the usual
\nway but that would not enable the obligation imposed by sub-
\ns. (2), namely, payment in advance, to be enforced.  On such
\nreading,  there would be no effective provision for  payment
\nof tax in advance in a case where the assessee makes his own
\nestimate.  That could not have been intended.
\nIt is of interest to note that sub-s. (3) contains the\tsame
\nwords  “‘income\t to  which the provisions of s.\t 18  do\t not
\napply”.\t  Now  if  these words are interpreted\tin  the\t way
\nsuggested by the appellants, then in a case under this\tsub-
\nsection dividends need not
\n690<\/span>
\nbe included in the income for the purpose of computation  of
\ntax  payable  in advance.  But clearly\tdividends  would  be
\nliable\tto  be\tincluded in cases where sub-s.\t(1)  or\t (2)
\napplies.   It is impossible to imagine that the\t legislature
\ncould have intended to provide differently for a case coming
\nunder sub-s. (3).  As we have already said, the main purpose
\nof  s. 18 is to provide for deduction of tax at the  source.
\nTherefore, it is correct to interpret the words “‘income  to
\nwhich provisions of s. 18 do not apply” as referring to that
\ntype  of  income  in respect of which  s.  18  provides\t for
\ndeduction of tax at the source.\t That fits in also with\t the
\nscheme\tof s. 18A.  If once tax has been deducted,  then  no
\nquestion  of paying tax on it again in advance or  otherwise
\nwould  arise.\tFor all these reasons, it seems to  us\tthat
\nincome\t contemplated  in  the\twords  “‘income\t  to   which
\nprovisions of s. 18 do not apply” does not include dividends
\npayable to a resident assessee.\n<\/p>\n
For these reasons we would dismiss the appeal with costs.
\nBy  COURT: In accordance with the opinion of  the  majority,
\nthis appeal is allowed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
691<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 4 December, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1066, 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 668 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Sarkar, A.K., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKURDAS Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/12\/1962 BENCH: DAS, S.K. […]<\/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-9972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPurshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 December, 1962 - 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\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-06T16:16:56+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=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 4 December, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T16:16:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962\"},\"wordCount\":6957,\"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\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962\",\"name\":\"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T16:16:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 4 December, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 December, 1962 - 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\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-06T16:16:56+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":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 4 December, 1962","datePublished":"1962-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T16:16:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962"},"wordCount":6957,"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\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962","name":"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T16:16:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottamdas-thakurdas-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-december-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Purshottamdas Thakurdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 4 December, 1962"}]},{"@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\/9972","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=9972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}