1959 (5) TMI 14 - SC - Income Tax

What question of law arose for determination out of the Tribunal s order under section 33(4) of the Act? Held that - The result of our going into these appeals before us on the merits would be either to confirm the judgment which has been pronounced by the High Court or to differ from it. If we did the former the appellants would be out of court if however perchance we came to the contrary conclusion and accepted the latter view namely that the High Court was wrong in not granting the applications of the appellants under section 66(2) of the Act there would be two contrary decisions one by the High Court and the other by us and we would be in effect though not by the proper procedure to be adopted by the appellants in that behalf setting aside the judgment of the High Court. This is an eventuality which we cannot view with equanimity. It is contrary to all notions of comity of courts and even though we are a court which could in certain events set aside and overrule the decisions of the High Court concerned we cannot by-pass the normal procedure which is to be adopted for this purpose and achieve the result indirectly in the manner suggested by the appellants. We therefore think that in the circumstances here it would be inappropriate on our part to enter upon an adjudication of these appeals on merits. We would therefore dismiss these appeals without anything more. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against orders of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 33(4) and High Court under section 66(2)
- Entertaining appeal under article 136 of the Constitution
- Preliminary objection raised by the respondent
- Consideration of the judgment of the High Court

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four appeals by a Hindu undivided family against the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8th June, 1951, in Reference Applications. The family was involved in a debt dispute with the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, and the Income-tax Officer included certain sums received by the family in the assessment orders for various years. The family appealed these orders, leading to a series of appeals and applications to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court under different sections of the Income-tax Act. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal, prompting the family to apply for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted in 1954.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection before the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals were not filed against the appropriate orders under the Income-tax Act. The respondent contended that the family was attempting to challenge the High Court's decision indirectly by appealing directly to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's rejection of their applications. The respondent emphasized the limited scope of the appeal under article 136, suggesting that the family should have appealed against the High Court's orders if they wished to challenge them.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the procedural complexities and the significance of the High Court's judgment on the matter. The Court expressed reluctance to potentially contradict the High Court's decision by entertaining the appeals on their merits. The Court highlighted the importance of respecting the decisions of lower courts and maintaining the proper procedures for challenging them. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals without delving into the substantive issues.

In light of the circumstances and the parties' preparation for a hearing on the merits, the Supreme Court ordered each party to bear their own costs, considering the interests of justice. The judgment underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures and respecting the decisions of lower courts to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.