Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras-Ii vs Blue Mountain Engineering ... on 1 March, 1977
The submission of the learned standing counsel for the department was that the new provision has made a change and that the option the existence of which was previously inferred from the following words of section 3 of the Act of 1922, viz., "of every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually" being no longer there in section 4, the same legal position did not apply. As pointed out earlier, the submission was that the income-tax department was entitled to reach the income for taxation in the hands of the proper entity and that the assessment on the basis of any mistaken view of the facts on some other person would not stand in the way of the proper person being assessed. The learned standing counsel stated that any safeguard against any attempt to collect the tax twice over on the same income may be indicated so that it may be given effect to. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had pointed out in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 at page 230, that appropriate direction could be given to the authority concerned in this behalf.