LexINCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-WARD, SITAPUR versus MURLIDHAR BHAGWANDAS, LAKHIMPUR KHERI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 411 either with cl. (1) of Art. 15 or cL (2) of Art. 29 to require 1964 the consideration of the castes of persons tto be borne in R. Chilraleklw mind for determining what are socially and educationally Stat• ofM"Jton backward classes. It is true that cl. ( 4) of Art, 15 contains a non-obstante clause with 1the result that power conferred Mudholkar 1. by that clause can be exercised despite the provisions of cl. (1) of Art. 15 and cl. (2) of Art. 29. But that does not justify the inference that castes have any relevance in determining what are socially and educationally backward communities. As my learned brother bas rightly i;iointed out the Constitution has used in cl. ( 4) the expression "classes" and not "castes". Upon the view which I have taken on the two points I have discussed the appeals must be allowed and a direction be issued to the Selection Committee to make the selection of candidates solely on the basis of the result of P.U.C. examination. I would allow them with costs here as well as in the High Court. ORDER BY COURT In view of the judgment of the majority, the appeals fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-WARD, SITAPUR v. MURLIDHAR BHAGWANDAS, LAKHIMPUR KHERl (B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) lncome Tax-Assessment or reassts!ment made under order or direction from higher authority must relate to the assessment o/ tlae year under revfcw:....__Mear.ing of "finding", "direction." and "any person''- Decision of lncome~tax Officer for a particular year not res judicata for subsequent year-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 34(3), provi•o-M<aning and ico~ of. The respondent was a firm carrying on business in different Jines. It was .. sessed lo income-tax under s. 23 ( 4) of tho Income· lax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1949-50 on the ground that notices issued under ~. 22(2) aud ( 4) bad not been complied with. Later on, that assessment 1964 January, 29 lHf J, T. Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, Lakhimpurkheri 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] was cancelled. However, before tbc cancellation. ii waa found that ID interest income of Rs. 88,737 in the shape of U.P. Encumbered Estatea. Act Bonds received by the respondent from third parties had escaped assessinent as the assessce failed to disclose the same. The Income-tu Officer isseed a notice for the assessment year 1949-50 on the ground that a sum of Rs. 88,737 had escaped assessment in the said assessment year. After the caiJceJlation of the assessment made under s. 23(4), the Incom~ tax Officer, ignoring the notice i~sued by hi1n under s. 34(l)(a). includ- ed that amount in the fresh assessment made by him for the }'ear 1949- 10. The respontlent 2ppcaled to the Appell::te Assistant Commissioner who ordered the deletion of the sum of Rs. 88,737 from the assessment for the year 1949-SO and directed the same to be included in th• ass ..... ment for the year ending 1948-49. Pursu:111t to the direction given, the I:icome.tax Officer sened a notice on the respondent under s. 34(1). Against that notice the a~esse.s filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashini; the above·rnentioned proceeding on the ground that these were initiated beyond the time p,..,_ cribed by s. 34. The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the notice on the ground that it was issued by the appellant beyond the ordi- nary period of limitation It also overruled the contention of the appel· lant that no period of limitation governed the notice in as much as the second proviso to s. 34(3) was attracted to the facts of the case. The only direc!ion which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could give was one which was covered by s. 31 of the Act and as the appeal before him was confined to a particular assessment year, the tlirection must necessarily be limited to a matter falling within that year. If the direc- tion be treated as based on a finding recorded by AppeJiate Assistant Commissioner, tbot findin& would have to be disregarded when applyiq the proviso. The appellant came to this Court by special leave. Held: (po.r B. P. Sinh•, CJ., K. Subba Rao and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.). The proviso to sub·•· (3) of s. 34 of the Indian Incom.,. tax Act, 1922 dOCll not save the time limit prescribed under sub-s. (1) ot s. 34 in re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.