9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (4) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judicial Committee was pronounced the Income-tax Officer started a proceeding against the Maharaja under Section 34. The proceeding was started on the 25th of September, 1948. The provisions of Section 34 were later amended and though the actual date of the amendment was 8th of September, 1948, the amendment was matter with restrospective effect from 30th of March, 1948. In view of the amendment of Section 34 the Income-tax Officer started a fresh proceeding on the 18th of March, 1949, On 30th of April, 19.49, the Income-tax Officer granted certain deductions and held that the amount of ₹ 76,921 should be added to the assessable income of the Maharaja of Dumraon. The Maharaja died on 13th of November, 1949, and his son Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh has been substituted in his place in the proceedings of the Income-tax authorities. An appeal was taken against the order of the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The contention of the assessee was that the decision of the Judicial Committee was not tantamount to definite information or discovery within the meaning of Section 34 and the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to start a proceeding. The argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following questions of law arising out of their order in I. T. Appeal No. 2933 of 1949-50, dated the 21st August, 1950, for the opinion of this honourable Court : (a) Whether Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by Act No. XLVIII of 1948, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case? (b) Whether the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh and others is a definite information within the meaning of Section 34 as it stood before the amendment of 1948 ? (c) If the answer to question (a) be in the affirmative, whether the decision of the Privy Council is an information within the meaning of the amended Section 34 of the Act to entitle the Income-tax Officer to reassess? In paragraph 9 the assessee prayed that the High Court should ask the Tribunal to state a case on the following question of law: - Whether in the circumstances of the assessment under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act of the interest on arrears of rent was legal ? The application was admitted by a Division Bench of the High Court who ordered the Appellate Tribunal to state a case on the following question of law:- Whether in the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been required by the assessee to state, the assessee may, within thirty days from the date on which he receives notice of the refusal to state the case, withdraw his application and, if he does so, the fee paid shall be refunded. Section 66(2) provides:- If on any application being made under sub-section (1) the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises, the assessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may, within six months from the date on which he is served with notice of the refusal, apply to the High Court, and the High Court may, if it is not satisfied of the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, require the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and to refer it, and in receipt of any such requisition the Appellate Tribunal shall state the case and refer it accordingly. Rule 22A of the rules prescribed under Section 59 of the Indian Income-tax Act prescribes the form of the application under Section 66(1); and this form requires the petitioner to specifically state the questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal which the petitioner desires to be referred to the High Court. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the question of law which the assessee seeks to refer must be a question of law which has been actually raised before the Tribunal or actually dealt with by it in its order. That is the view taken by this High Court in Chatturam Horilram Ltd. In re [1951] 1 I.T.R. 600. That is also the view expressed by the Madras High Court in A. Abboy Chetty Co. v. CIT [1947] 15 I.T.R. 442 and by the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal v. Jeewanlal Ltd. [1951] 20 I.T.R. 39 There are two further difficulties in the way of Mr. Dutt, for the other conditions imposed by Section 66(2) have also not been satisfied in this case. It is-conceded that in the application made to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) the assessee did not ask that the question of limitation should be referred to the High Court for decision. It is further conceded that in the application made to the High Court under Section 66(2) the assessee did not require that the question of limitation should be referred. Since these preliminary conditions have not been satisfied it is manifest that the High Court has no jurisdiction to answer the question of law propounded by Mr. Dutt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... runachalam Chettiar [1953] 23 I.T.R. 180. The question at issue in that case was whether the High Court was right in holding that the reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(2) was competent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to call for a reference. It was observed that the jurisdiction given to the High Court under sub-section (2) of Section 66 was conditional on an application under sub-section (1) being refused by the Appellate Tribunal. This clearly presupposed that the application under sub-section (1) was otherwise a valid application. If, therefore, an application under sub-section (1) was not well founded in that there was no order which could properly be said to be an order under sub-section (4) of Section 33 then the refusal of the Appellate Tribunal to state a case on such misconceived application on the ground that no question of law arises will not authorise the High Court, on an application under sub-section (2) of Section 66, to direct the Tribunal to state a case. The reason was that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and of the High Court was conditional on there being an order by the Appellate Tribunal wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
