LAWS(KAR)-1962-1-10

INCOME TAX OFFICER BANGALORE I AND Vs. MYSORE SPUN SILK MILLS LTDIN LIQUIDATION

Decided On January 18, 1962
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE I Appellant
V/S
MYSORE SPUN SILK MILLS LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle A, Bangalore, had made a claim for preferential payment to him of a sum of Rs. 14,503.80 from the assets of the company in liquidation. the claim is wholly rejected by the liquidator by his order dated 18th January,1962. In this application, the applicant appeals against the order of the liquidator rejecting his claim.

(2.) The facts and circumstances, on the strength of which the claim had been made, are briefly the following: The company had entered into a contract with a from of builders called "South India Builders" for construction of certain buildings. The said firm of builders had defaulted in payment of income-tax due by them, for recovery of which the Income-tax Officer, Bellary, who was the appropriate assessing authority in respect of the said firm, issued to the company on 11th February, 1953, a notice under the provision of section 46 (5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requiring the company to pay to the officer the money due by it to the defaulting assessee. In reply to the notice, the company in its letter dated 20th February, 1953, after acknowledging receipt of the said notice, stated as follows.

(3.) It also appears from the same reply that a similar notice had been received by the Company from the II-Additional Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bangalore. The company, however, did not make any payment to the income-tax department. In December, 1956, the company wrote to the Income-tax officer, Special Circle, at Bangalore (to whom the learned counsel for the applicant says the matter of collecting arrears of tax due by the firm of builders had been entrusted), stating that the question whether the company was legally liable to pay any amount to the South India Builders had been referred for legal opinion. After receipt of such legal opinion , the company wrote once again to the same officer on 28th December, 1956, as follows: