COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA & ANR. versus ANIL KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY & ANR.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 30-03-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL, 
A 
CALCUTTA & ANR. 
v. 
ANIL KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY & ANR. 
March 30, 1967 
[J. C. SHAH,.:S. M. SIKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) 
Indiall [T1come Tax Act, 1922· (11 of 1962) Ss. 33 
(2), and 66-
Proper person to file appeal, who is-New facts, 
jurisdiction of Hlgli 
Court. 
On the success of the assessee's appeal against an assessment made by 
the Income Tax Officer, District I (2), the Department appealed to the 
Tribunal. This was filed by the Income Tax Officer, District VI, in whose 
jurisdiction the assessee had shifted his n!s-idencc. 
The assessee objected 
that the appeal was incompetent as it was not filed by the Income Tax 
Officer who 1had made the assessment. 
The Tribunal rejected the objec-
tion. 
On reference, the High Court sent for the records looked into them 
and on new facts, answered the question against the Revenue. 
In appeal 
by special leave 
HELD.-The Income Tax Officer. District VI, had jurisdiction over 
the assessee and he could be directed by the Commissioner to file 
the 
appeal. 
B 
c 
D 
Under S. 33(2), the person who has a right to appeal is the Commis-
sioner of Income Tax and not the Income Tax Officer. · The Income Tax 
Officer, when he files the al'peal under the direction of the Commissioner 
performs merely a ministenal function. 
But the 
Income Tax 
Olftcer 
E 
selected must have some concern with ihe assessee 
against 
whom 
the 
appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax. 
It may be that the 
Income Tax Officer who completed the original assessment would also be 
concerned with the appeal to be filed by the Commissioner, but it does 
not mean that he is exclusively so concerned. 
If the case had been trans~ 
ferred by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue from ~he Income 
Tax Officer who completed the assessment to another Income Tax Officer, 
then obviously the former officer will have no concern with the appeal. 
F 
But if there has been no such transfer then it cannot be said that be alone 
is concerned with the appeal. The Income Tax Officers can have con-
current jurisdiction over some matters. 
One illustration 
of this 
is prr 
vided by s. 64(4). [325F-H; 327D] 
. 
Commissioner of Jnco1n.e Tax, We.\·/ Bengal, Calcutta v. S.. Sal'kar & 
Co. A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 613. approved. 
Sardar Ba/dev Singh v. 
Commi.l'sioner of Income 
Tax, 
De/Iii 40 
G 
I.T.R. 605, followed. 
R. B. L. Benarsl Dass v. C.l.T. East Punjab, 42 T.T.R. 363, disaporov-
ed. 
The High C~urt exceeded its ju,ris<liction un~lcr s.66. of the 
fncome 
Tax Act in fin<lmg new facts. If 1t felt any difficulty m answering the 
question. it should ha,·e called for u supplementary 
statement 
of 
the 
H 
case. 
[325Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTlnN: Civil Appeal No. 205 of . 
1966. 
; 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
C.J. T. v. ANJL KUMAR ( Sikri, J. ) 
323 
Appeal from the judgment an<! order dated. May 28, 1963 of 
the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 79 of 1959. 
Veda Vyasa, A. N. Kirpal, S. P. Nayyar and R. N. Sachthey, 
for the appellants. 
A. K. Sen and B. P. Maheshwarl, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal in pursuance of a certificate of fitness 
granted by the High Court of Judicature at. Ca!cutta und~r s. 66 
(A)(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, 1s drrected against the 
judgment of the High Court in .Income Tax Reference No. 79. of 
1959. By its judgment, the High Court answered the fol!owmg 
question, referred to it by the Income Tax Appellate Tnbunal, 
against the Revenue : 
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the 
case, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed 
by a proper person ?" 
The relevant facts are stated in the statement of the case and 
are as follows : The respondents, hereinafter referred to as the 
assessee, is a Hindu Undivided family and for the assessment year 
1947-48 the assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Dist. 
1(2) on February 12, 1952. He held that the income of 
Rs. 1,41,851/- derived from forests in East Pakistan was not agri-
cultural income exempt from tax under the Indian Income Tax Act, 
1922. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commis-
sioner, who, by his order dated February 7, 1956, held that the 
said amount of Rs. 1,41,851 /- represented income from agricul-
ture and was thus exempt from tax. 
The Department appealed 
to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and.the appeal was filed by 
the Income Tax Officer, District VI

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