1948 (7) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Maintainability of revisions against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Availability of remedy under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.
3. Adequacy of other specific legal remedies for the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis

1. Maintainability of Revisions Against the Order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
The primary issue concerns whether the revisions filed by the petitioner were maintainable under Section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, given that the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had been made the subject of appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. The relevant provisions of Section 33A(2) state that the Commissioner shall not revise any order if the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The court interpreted that an order is made the subject of an appeal only when it is the subject matter of an effective appeal. Since the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred, the court held that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner had not been made the subject of an appeal. Therefore, the Commissioner was bound to dispose of the revisions on the merits in accordance with the law.

2. Availability of Remedy Under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act
The second issue was whether the petitioner could seek relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that the Income-tax Act exhaustively defines the obligations and remedies of the taxpayer. However, it emphasized that if a party takes the remedy provided by the Act in strict conformity thereof, but the Tribunal constituted under the Act refuses to discharge its duties, Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act can be invoked to compel officers to discharge their statutory duties. The court rejected the argument that the remedy under Section 45 was not available to the petitioner.

3. Adequacy of Other Specific Legal Remedies for the Petitioner
The third issue was whether the petitioner had other specific and adequate legal remedies available. The court acknowledged that the petitioner could have filed the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal in time. However, it emphasized that the petitioner had alternative remedies and was entitled to resort to either of them unless precluded by any provisions of the Act. The court held that when the legislature provided two remedies, it was not open to the Commissioner to argue that the petitioner was bound to prefer the appeals. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the argument would not hold even if the petitioner had waived his right of appeal and preferred revisions, which were dismissed by the Commissioner.

Conclusion
The court directed the Commissioner of Income-tax to hear and determine the revisions filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, in accordance with the law. The respondent was also ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner. The judgment underscores the importance of statutory duties and the availability of alternative remedies under the law.