INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW versus M/S. S. B. SINGHAR SINGH & SONS & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 17-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
214 
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW 
v. 
M/S. S. B. SINGHAR SINGH & SONS & ANR. 
August 17. 1976 
[H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 19'5(}.-Art. 226-High Court'-if couM interfere with 
t/1e appellate orders of Income Tax, Appellate Tribunal under Art. 226. 
Since the assessec had not maintained complete ahd regular accounts for 
the purpose of Excess Profits tax, the Excess Profits ,Tax Officer assesSed tax on 
the basis of accounts of certain previous years chosen by the assessee as his 
"standard period", pointing out that because of this position it was not possible 
to make any adjustment for variations in average capital. The Assistant Appel-
late Commissioner upheld the assessment order. In appeal to the Appellate 
Tribunal one of the specific grounds taken by the assessee was that the Excess 
Profits Tax Officer and the Assistant Appellate C-Ommissioner had erred in not 
allowing proper standard profits in accordanc<J with the standard period subject 
to the adjustment on account of increase and decreaSe of capital iu the relevant 
chargeable· accounting period and that they were prepared to file computation 
of average capital. 
Without discussing the ground relating to the 
standard 
profits the Tribunal disposed of the appeals. The assessee's second application 
alleging that the Q:round relating to the ·standard profits was not disposed of 
by it was rejected by the Tribunal. In an application under s. 66(2) of the 
Income Tax Act before the High Court, the assessee did not ask for a reference 
on this ground. 
But during proceedings for pl\oparation of statement of case, 
the assessee's application requesting the Tribunal to refer this ground to the 
High Court was rejected by it. 
The assessee's p0tilion for a v.rit of Mandamus 
requiring the Tribunal to consider the ground relating to standard profits was 
allowed by the High Court. 
Allowing the Departm~nt's appeal to thi> Co~rt, 
HELD : The HiQ:h Court could not justifiably interfere, in the exercise of 
its e~traordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, 
wiih 
the 
appellate orders of the Tribunal. The question as to whether the omission to 
record a finding on Ground No. 1 by the Tribunal was due to the failure of the 
appellant to urge that ground or due to a lapse on the part of the Tribunal, 
which deserved rectification, was a matter entirely for the authorilies under 
the statute to decide. [219 G] 
Shivram Poddar v. Income-tax Officer (19'64) 51, I.T.R. 823, 829 (S.C.) 
applied. 
In the ihstant case the High Court had assumed jurisdiction on the assump-· 
tion that a certain grol!nd had been urged before the Tribunal which had arbit· 
rarily refused to consider the same and record a finding thereon. This assumption, 
stood thoroughly discounted by the concomitant circumstances of the case in-
cluding the dilatory and questionable conduct of the assessee. 
This was not 
a fit case for the exercise by the High Court of its special juri&diction under 
Art. 226. [220 C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1539 of 1971. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5-8-1969 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Special Appeal No. 58/65). 
B. B. Ahuja and R. N. Sachthey, for the Appellant. 
A. T. M. Sampath and Ram Lal, for Respondent No. 1. 
INCOME TAX OFFICER v. s. B. SINGH (Sarkaria, J.) 
215 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J.-This appeal on certificate is directed against an 
appellate judgment, dated August 5, 1969, of a Bench of the High 
Court of Allahabad. It arises as follows : 
M/s. S. B. Singar Singh and Sons (hereinafter called the assessee) 
were assessed to Excess Profits tax for the chargeable accountine; 
Qeriods, ending March 31, 1945 and March 31, 1946, under two 
assessment orders dated August 26, 1949. The previous years 1936-
3 7 was chosen by the assessee as his standard period." The profits of 
that year were Rs. 38,703/-. 
After 
deducting the profits of the 
standard year, the Excess Profits Tax Officer, assessed the tax on the 
remaining amounts of profits. 
The Excess Profits Tax thus assessed 
for the accounting years, 
was to the tune of Rs. 1,06,181.5 and 
Rs. 48,978/-, respectively. In his orders, the assessing Officer said 
that "for reasons detailed in the earlier assessment orders no adjust-
ments· are made for capital variations in the standard pefiod and the 
chargeable accounting period". These reasons as given in

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