Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is a Reference under Sec. 66(1) of the Indian Income -tax Act.
(2.) The assessment year involved is the year 1949 -50, the relevant accounting year being the year ended on December 31,1948. The question referred to this Court is: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount deemed to have been distributed to the Assessee by virtue of an order under Sec. 23A of the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922, against M/s. M. M. Ispahani Ltd., had been validly assessed under the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922, in his hands during the relevant assessment year ?
(3.) The question arises in the following circumstances. The Assessee is an individual and a share -holder of a company known as M. M. Ispahani Ltd. It is admitted that: (a) M. M. Ispahani Ltd. was originally incorporated in British India as a private company and used to have its registered office in the town of Calcutta. (b) On the eve of the partition of India, M. M. Ispahani Ltd. shifted its registered office to Chittagong, now in East Pakistan, on June 26, 1947. (c) Thereafter, on July 10, 1947, M.. M. Ispahani Ltd. converted itself into a public limited company. (d) On August 5, 1948, the Annual General Meeting of the share -holders of M. M. Ispahani Ltd. was held at Chittagong and a dividend was declared for the year ended December 31, 1046. (e) In the assessment year 1947 -48, the Income -tax Officer found that the dividend declared by M. M. Ispahani Ltd. was less than the statutory percentage, contemplated under Sec. 23A of the Indian Income -tax Act, as it stood prior to the amendment in 1955. He, therefore, took action against M. M. Ispahani Ltd. under Sec. 23A and made an order on February 27, 1954, deeming that a sum of Rs. 5,72,491 was distributed as dividend on August 5, 1948, amongst six named share -holders of M. M. Ispahani Ltd. including the Assessee. We have proceeded on the above -stated admitted facts because the statement of the case is much too cryptic. We do not, however, think it necessary to call for a supplementary statement on the above facts of historical importance in the context of the instant Reference, firstly, because they were admitted facts and, secondly, because we noticed the above facts in our judgment in M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income -tax, Central Calcutta I.T. Ref. No. 41 of 1963 only a few days ago, on June 22, 1967, and decided to take note of that judgment.;