VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawCBDT Circulars & Instructions › Statutory position — s.170: the predecessor is assessed to the date of succession, s.170(2) where the predecessor cannot be found, and s.170(3) recovery of his tax from the successor
CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both wayss.170s.170(1)s.170(2)s.170(3)s.170(4)s.171s.159

Statutory position — s.170: the predecessor is assessed to the date of succession, s.170(2) where the predecessor cannot be found, and s.170(3) recovery of his tax from the successor

I bought a running business in October. The Assessing Officer has issued a notice to me for the whole year, and a separate demand for the seller's tax for the year before I arrived. Who is supposed to be assessed on a succession, and when can the department recover the seller's tax from me?

I bought a running business in October. The Assessing Officer has issued a notice to me for the whole year, and a separate demand for the seller's tax for the year before I arrived. Who is supposed to be assessed on a succession, and when can the department recover the seller's tax from me?

Section 170(1) splits the previous year at the date of succession: the predecessor is assessed on the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession, and the successor is assessed on the income of that previous year after the date of succession. Two provisions displace that split and both are narrow — s.170(2) allows the assessment to be made on the successor, but only where the predecessor cannot be found and only for the year of succession up to the date of succession and the previous year preceding that year; and s.170(3) allows tax assessed on the predecessor for those same two periods, and only that tax, to be recovered from the successor once the Assessing Officer has recorded a finding that it cannot be recovered from the predecessor.

Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 1988-04-01, reported as Income-tax Act, 1961, s.170, sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) with the Explanation, as printed on the Year 2025 and Year 2024 (No. 2) departmental pages. It bears on section 170, section 170(1), section 170(2), section 170(3), section 170(4), section 171, section 159 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Demand, Recovery & Stay and How Tax Law Is Read matters.

Still good law. The Year 2024 (No. 1), Year 2024 (No. 2) and Year 2025 departmental pages print sub-sections (1) to (4) and the Explanation identically, and so do the Year 2000, Year 2018 and Year 2019 pages, which is the strongest evidence available on this pass that nothing has altered these sub-sections since the 1987 change of 'Income-tax Officer' to 'Assessing Officer'. That is not the same as reading a Finance Act: no Finance Act text was retrieved this pass, and I could not find a departmental page for this section stamped Year 2026. The only recent change to section 170 that I established is the insertion of sub-section (2A) with effect from 1 April 2022, which is dealt with separately.

Why it matters

Almost every dispute in this area is a dispute about the two limits that practitioners skip. The first is the period limit. Section 170(2) and section 170(3) reach the previous year in which the succession took place, up to the date of succession, and the previous year preceding that year — nothing earlier. A demand transferred to a successor for a year three years before the succession is outside the section on its own words. The second is the condition. Section 170(3) does not operate automatically on non-payment: the Assessing Officer 'shall record a finding to that effect', and a successor served with a section 170(3) demand should ask to see that finding before he pays anything, because without it the recovery has no statutory foundation. Two further points are routinely missed. A successor who pays under s.170(3) 'shall be entitled to recover from the predecessor any sum so paid' — the section gives him a statutory right of recovery, not merely a contractual indemnity. And the Explanation at the end of the section provides that for the purposes of the section 'income' includes any gain accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession, so the predecessor's slice of the year includes the gain on the sale of the business itself. Note the boundary of the whole section: it is headed 'Succession to business otherwise than on death', so a succession on death is governed by section 159 and not by this section; and s.170(4) sends a case where a Hindu undivided family's business is succeeded to, with a partition simultaneously or afterwards, to the machinery of section 171. Finally, section 170 decides who is assessed on a succession. It does not answer the different question of whether an assessment framed on an entity that has ceased to exist is a nullity: that question is governed by the amalgamation line and by s.292B, and this library carries it separately.

Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.

Not yet CA-verified. This entry was found through the sources listed under the Sources tab, and the summary reflects what those sources say. Nobody has yet read the full judgment and signed it off. Check the source before relying on it.

Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.

Related

Other authorities on the same sections.