COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX versus SARDAR LAKHMIR SINGH

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 12-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
CommiuiONr of 
lneom1-1ax, Modrtir 
Y. 
J..,nbh2 Muliammad 
H11sr .;., .,Varhiar 
.1Jtm111l 
Sa1kar, /, 
1962 
Dr(tmber, 12, 
148 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
[For the Judgment 
of Hidayatullah 
and 
Raghubar Dayal, JJ., see S. 0. Prashar, Jnwme.tax 
Officer v. Vasantsen Dv.:arkadas, ante p. 29.] 
BY CouRT : In accordance with the opinion of 
the Omajority, the appeal is allowed. The appellant 
will pay the costs of the respondent as was agreed to 
by the parties. 
..4. ppeal allowed. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 
"· 
SARDAR LAKHMIR SINGH 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. 
SARKAR, 
M. HIDAYATULLAJI an:! RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
lncom<!·lax-Limitntion-A•aeumenl 
made 
after /OW' 
year.•-IJ barred-Provi.1ion aat-ing assessment in rup<<ll of 
aome persons-If di..criminatory-lndian lncom<!0 ta:r A<ll, 1922 
(11 of 1922), 1. 31, 34(3)-lndi.an lncome-ta:r (A>nendment) 
Act, 1953 (25 of 1953), ••· 18, 31-Conatitution of India, 
Art. 14. 
The asscssee and hi• father filed separate returns for the 
year 1946.47 and the father al'° filed a return as Karta of the 
Hindu undivided family in which the income was declared as 
... 
nil on the ground that the Hindu undivided family had ceased 
1, 
to exist. On March 15, 19jl, the Income-tax Officer amal-
gamated the incomes of the assessee and his father and assessed 
them on the total income as the income of a Hindu undivided 
family but he did not make any asscs1ment of the assessee as 
an 
individual. 
On appeal by the 
father 
the 
Appel-
late Assistant Commissioner, on March 20, l9j3, held that 
there v.'a'J no Hindu undivided family, set aside that assessment 
and directed a 
rea~sessrnent of the assessee and his father as 
individuals. 
Thcreuoon the 
Income-tax Officer, by order 
dJted ~ >vember 27, 1953, assessed the assessee as an individual. 
' \ 
1 s.c.R. - SUPREME COURT REPORTS -149 
The assessee contended that the assessm_ent not having been 
made within four years of the year 1946-47 i.e. by March 31, 
· 1951, was barred by s. 34(3} -of the Ineome-tax Act, 1922, 
The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessment was not 
. barred, but, at. the instance' of the assessee, it referred to the 
High Court the question whether the assessment -was validly 
made. _The High Court answered the reference in favour of 
the assessee. The appellant contended that the assessment was 
within time as it· was saved by the second proviso to s. 34(3} 
as amended by the Amending Act, 1953 and that the assess-
-ment was validated by s. 31 of the Amending Act, 1953. 
Held (per Das, Kapur and Sarkar, JJ., Hidayatullah and 
Dayal, JJ., di8'enting) that the assessment not having been 
made within the time prescribed bys. 34(3), was barred. 
8. 0. Prcuhar, Incomo-tax Officer v. Va1antsen Dwarkadcu, 
[1964] Vol. I S. C. R. 29, relied on. 
_ - -
-. _ 0 
• 
_ 
_ 
Per Das and Kapur,JJ.-The second proviso to s. 34(3) _ 
which came into force on April- 1, 1952, did not revive the 
power to assess which had become barred. Further, the appel-
lant could not rely upon s. 31 of the Amending Act of 1953, 
· as this question was not covered by the question referred 
to the High Court. 
Per Sarkar,J.-The second proviso to s. 34(3} as amended 
In 1953, In so far as it affected persons other than assessees was 
- void as violating Art. -14 of the Constitution. The proviso 
_ sought to save assessments in respect of assessees and those 
against whom assessments were made in consequence of orders 
made under s. 31 in the assessment : cases of those assessees but -
not those of other tax evaders. The classification made was 
without any intelligible dilferentia having a rational connection 
with the object of the statute. 
Per Hidayatullah- and Dayal, JJ.-The assessm'ents were 
valid and were saved by the second proviso to s. 34(3} as 
amended in 1953 and bys. 31 of the Amending Act of 1953. 
· The Court was bound to take notice of s. 31 of the Amending 
Act of 1953 even though it was not mentioned in the order of 
_ reference and in the judgment of the High Court Section 31 of 
the Amending Act was clearly applicable to the case as admit-
tedly the proceedings commenced after September 8, 1948. 
Further the second proviso to s. 34(3) as amended in 1953 
was not discriminatory and did not offend Art. 14 of the Cons-
titution. A law relating -to tax evasion cannot lay down a 
I 
1952 -
Commissimur qf 
lne"1U·lu 
v • 
Sardar IAIJunw 
Sitrzh 
... 
•
1961 
CqmmUsiontr of 
lncM'111·ta:c 
v. 
Sar..U,, I. aJJmU' 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.