K.S.RASHID & SONS AND ANOTHER versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 19-02-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1961 
·Rlllnclumdra 
Rambu 
v. 
Clunnpabal 
Mudholkar J. 
1961 
,Fcbr1111TY 19. 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
allowed Sitabai to remain in possession of Ramdhan's 
movables. 
At least, he would have obtained from her a 
document containing the list and description of the movables 
and also an admission to the effect that she was entrusted 
with them by the appellant and that she had no right in them. 
Had she refused to execute such a document, one would have 
naturally expected the appellant to institute a suit for their 
possession 
immediately. There is no explanation for the 
absence of such a document, and thus this is also a circums-
tance which militates against the genuineness of the will. 
In the circumstances, we hold that the High Court was 
right in rejecting the evidence of the attesting witnesses and 
the scribe as well as of the appellant with regard to the exe-
cution of the will by Ram4han. 
· 
We accordingly uphold the judgment of the High Court, 
and dismiss the appeal with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
K. S. RASHID & SONS AND ANOTHER 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. AND 
OTHERS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS 
GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Income-tax-Proceedings 
under 
s. 
34(1A}-Applicability 
of 
other 
relevant provisions of the Act-Slction 34( 1.A.) whether contravenu 
Art. 14 of the Constitution-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 
1922), rs. 34(1), 34(1A)-Constitution of India, Art. 14. 
The validity of s. 34(1A) of the Income-tax Act was challenged 
by the assessees as contravening Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was 
contended, that th'e remedy by way of appeals and revisions availablo 
in cases under s. 34( 1) was denied to the assessees against whom 
proceedings were taken under s. 34(1A), and that while under 
s. 34(1)(a), as it then stood, the assessing authority could not act 
beyond 8 years, this protection was not available to assessees against 
·whom action was taken under s. 34(1A). 
.. 
-
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Held: Section 34(1A) was valid and did not contravene Art. 14 of 
the Constitution. 
It could not have been the intention of the legislature when it 
enacted s. 34( IA) that the procedure prescribed by the relevant 
provisions of the Act beginning with s. 22 sho11ld not be applicable to 
proceedings taken under s. 34(1A), and that the procedure to be 
followed in the said proceedings and the powers to be exercised by 
the Income·tax Officers dealing with them should be, what is vaguely 
described as "the inherent or incidental powers" of such officers. The 
words "thereupon" and "accordingly" in s. 34(1A) seems to emphasise 
the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Act to the proceedings 
taken under s. 34(1A). 
· 
The object of the legislature being to catch income 
which 
had 
escaped assessment, it would be legitimate for the legislature to deal 
with the class of assessees in whose cases the income which had escaped 
assessment was much larger, because that would be a basis for rational 
classification which has an intelligible connection with the object intended 
to be achieved by the statute. 
Jai Kishan Srivastava v. ·lncOme~l(u Officer, Kanpur, l.L.R. [1959] 
II All. 451, approved. 
Sura; Mull Mohta v. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 448 
and Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.. Madurai v. Sri A. V. Yiswanatha 
Sastri, [1955]1 S.C.R. 787 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
37-40 of 1963. 
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated August 13, 
11, 1259 .. of. the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ 
Petitions Nos. 870 to 873 and 349 of 1956 respectively. 
WITH 
Petitions Nos. 335 to 345 of 1960. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for 
the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
G. S. Pathak, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. 
Vohra, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 37-40 of 1963). 
-- M. C. Setalvad, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and 
P. L. Vchra, for the aq:>pellant (in C.A. No. 589/63). 
('. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, K. N. Rajagopa/ 
Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents (in all the 
apPeals and petitions). 
1964 
K. S. Rasl!U 
v. 
CJ.T. 
1961 
K. S. Rashid 
v. 
C.J.T. 
Gaiendragadkar 
c. J. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
F"ebruary 19, 1964. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.-These civil appeals and wn; 
petitions !wvc been placed before us for hearing in a group, 
because all of them raise a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.