LexBALAJI versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ' ~ S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 983 correct and the application of the tenant-appellant for fixation of standard rent must now be deter- mined in accordance with Jaw. It would be for the competent authorities to consider now the effect· of s.46 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 or of any other law bearing on the question whirh may have come into existence since tl1en. We would, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller, the District Judge and the High Court dismissing the application of the appellant. The application must now be dealt with in accordance with law by the authority competent to do so in the light of the observat.ions made above. In the result the appeals in all three categories are allowed as indicated above. The appellants in all the appeals will be entitled to their costs, but there will be one Bl't of hearing fee for each of the three categories of appeals. Appeals allowed. BALAJI v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL INVESTIGA- TION CIRCLE (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. HrnAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Income Tax-Cor11putation of total income of indiv·id11al- - J 11clusion of income of wife and minor children jiorn patlntr· ship-- l'on<'ititut·ional ·validity of' enactntent-lnd·ian lnculf~t-tax Act, 1922 (JI of 1922), s. (16) (3) (a) (i) arul(ii) Uonstitu- tion of India, Arts. 14, 19 ( 1) (/) & (g). The petitioner and his wife started businr>S in partner- ship and admitted their three minor sous to it. Jn computing the total income of the petitioner for the purpose of assessment 1961 Roshan Lal Mehra v. bhwar Das S. K. Das J . 1961 August 4. ··984 SUPREME _COURT REPORTS (1962] 1961 . the Incom..:tax Officer, in~lirded the. shar~ of the income of· _t~e 'wife and ~ree'_minor sons un_der, s.16(3)(a) (i) and Balaji. . (11) of the. Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. · The petitloner v. . moved the Supreme Court tinder Art. 32_ of the Constitution Inrome-taz chaJlenging the constitutionality the said provisions on the Officer, Spe.cial . •grounds, (I) that they were, ultra 'vires 'the Legislature under lnt"estigation.·' Entry 54 of the Federal Legislative List of the Government of· Circle · India ,Act, 1935, and (2) that they contravened the provisions • of Arts. 14_apd_l9 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. . /hid, ·that the En;ries in the Legislative Lis;s are n~t i;ow.ers but' fields. of legislation an_d the widest import_ and. SJgndicance should be attached to them. Thus interpreted, there could be no' doubt that Entry 54 of the.Federal Legis- lative List must cover such legislation as the impugned provi- sion intended to pre\Tent the evasion of taic. _ _· . Sardar Baldev Singh v Commissioner of I ncorrte~ta:r, · Delhi and Ajmer. (1961) 1 S.CJi.. 482, referred to. . . . . , The t;,.o test~ -of· p~missible classification under Art .. 14 of the Constitution, as held by this Court, were (1) that the · classification must be founded on an intelligent dilferentia and (2} that the differentia must be . reasonably connected with the object of the legislation. · , . · ' . So judged . it , could not be said that the differentia on .whkh the impugned provision founded its classification had no rational relation to it• object, namely, the p~evention of the evasion of tax. The impugned provisi_on did not, there- fore, violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. · It- WM_ not appropriate to apply American -~ecisions dealing ,.,,ith evasion of taxes to similar cases . in India where the conditions \\o'ere entirely different. · Since the Legislature, . coQ'tlisant of the Widespread ·evasion Of taxes in this country, en~cted the law for its prevention, ·it would no! be l;'roper · · for this court in the absence of counter-balancing crrcum- . stances to hold on· the analogy .of American i;lecisions that there .;as no need for such legislation. . . Albert A. 'Hoeper v. · Tax Commissioner of Wisconsin, (1931} 76 L Ed. 248, distinguished and held inapplicable'. _ B. M. Amina Umma v. Income-tax. Officer, Kozhikode,. _(1954) 26 I.T.R. 137, approved. · · Nor did the impugned provi!ion violate Art. 19(i} (f} . . . and (g} of the constitution.· · · · • . ·. I A tax' authorised by law· may be questioned as ~ffending _ the fundamental frecdo:in · under Art. 1 \l of the Corutifution, .,.,' - ... 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 985 A tax law, llke any other law
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.