1966 (5) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Contention of the petitioner is that the Commissioner should have held that the taxable income must be determined by reference to the market value of the gold patlas on the date of the partial partition of HUF - there is on averment that the contention was specifically raised before the Commissioner - therefore, petition is dissmised

Summary

Issues:
1. Opportunity of being heard in quasi-judicial proceedings.
2. Determination of taxable income based on market value of assets.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved a case where the petitioner was assessed for income tax on profits from the sale of gold. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner determined that the gold was treated as stock-in-trade, making the profits revenue income subject to tax. The petitioner then sought revision under section 33A(2) to the Commissioner of Income-tax, which was dismissed. The petitioner challenged this order through a petition for certiorari.

The first issue raised by the petitioner was regarding the opportunity to be heard in quasi-judicial proceedings. The petitioner contended that he should have been given a chance to present his case before the Commissioner during the revision application. The court held that while the Commissioner exercises quasi-judicial jurisdiction, it was the petitioner's responsibility to provide all relevant material along with the revision application. The Commissioner was not obligated to inform the petitioner to submit further evidence unless material detrimental to the petitioner's case was relied upon. The court cited precedent to establish that there is no inherent right to oral hearing in quasi-judicial proceedings, ultimately rejecting the petitioner's first contention.

The second issue raised was the determination of taxable income based on the market value of the gold patlas at the time of partial partition of the Hindu undivided family. The petitioner argued that this aspect was disregarded by the Commissioner, leading to a manifest illegality in the order. However, the court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that this specific contention was raised before the Commissioner. Without the issue being pressed before the Commissioner, it could not be deemed as a manifest error of law. The court found no merit in this argument and dismissed the petition, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax, emphasizing the importance of presenting all relevant material during quasi-judicial proceedings and pressing specific contentions before the relevant authorities for consideration.