LexKALAWATI DEVI HARLALKA versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H KALAWATI DEVI HARLALKA v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL & ORS. May 1, 1967 [J. C. SHAH, S. M. SlKR! AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 297 and 298-Commissionu issuing notice of revision of assessment under s. 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922- whether such proceedings covered by the expression "proceedings for the assessment" in , .. 297(2) (a)-S. 6 General Clauses Act, 1897-Effect of s. 298 and the Income-tax (Remol'al of Dilfu:ulties) Orders, 1962-Vali- dilY of. The appeljant received a notice on January 24, 1963 from the Com- missioner of Income-tax, We.t Bengal, initiating a revision under s. 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, of her asse.sments for the years 19S2-S3 to 1960-61. The appellant thereupon filed a petition in tlie High Court under Art. ~26 of the Constitution ?raying that the notice be quashed and the 1espondent restrained from giving effect to it. A single Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition and an ·appeal to a Division Bench was also dismissed. It was contended on behalf of the appellant (i) that the Income-tax Act, . 1922, having been repealed by the Act of 1961 which came into force on April 1, 1962 the respondent had> no power, authority or juris- diction to initiate the proceedings under s. 33B of the 1922 Act; (ii) that •. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, did not authorise the initia- tion of t'he proceedings inasmuch as no steps were taken in respect thereof while the 1922 Act was in force; (iii) that s. 298 of the 1961 Act wa.< void; and in any event, the powers under the SCl'tion, under which the Government promulgated the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1962, clause 4 of which purported to cover a case like the present one, can be exercised only in respect of the matters dealt' with in s. 297 of that Act which docs not deal with proceedings tinder s. 33B of the 1922 Act. HELD: (i) The procecdin~< initiutcd hy the respondent were valid as they were covered hy the exptession "proceedings for £h.c ,,;sessment of that person" in Clause (a) of s. 297(2) of th~ 1961 Act. [84\E; 846B] The word "assessment" can cear a very eomprehensive meanin~; lt can comprehend the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing ltabi- lity upon the tax-payer, There was nothing in the context of s. 297 which required the expression ."procedure for the assessment" to be given a narrower meaning. S. 297 is meant to provide as far as possible for all contingencies which may arise out of the repeal of the 1922 Act [845A-CJ ' Cou1111i.\·sio11er of lnco111e~u1x, Bonibay v. Khen1cha11d Ramdas, 6 l.T.R. 414 at p. 423; A. N. Lakshman Shenoy v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakul1un, 34 l.T.R. 275 at p. 291; C. A. Abraham v. lllcome-tax Oli· cer, Kottt!Y"!!'• 41 I.T.R. 425 at pp. 429·430; Commlssi01ier of Income- tax v. Bh1ku11 Dadabhal & Co., 42 J.T.R. 123 at p. 127; Commissioner of lncome-t11.t v. Patlala. C•m•11t Co, Ltd., 32 I.T.R. 333; Bl1al/al Amin & Sons Ltcl, ,., R. P. Dalal, 24 l.T.R. 229, referred to. 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 3 S.C.R. (ii) S. 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply because s. A 297(2) evidences an intention to the contrary by providlilg for many matters, some in accord with what would have been the result under s, 6 nnd some contrary to such a rasult. l846A] Union of JndiG v,, Madan Gopal Kahrtl, 25 I.T.R. SB, referred to. (Iii) Section 298 of the 1961 Act is 'valid and the present case was covered by cl. 4 of the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, B 1962. [846 C·DJ Jalan Trad/1111 Company (Prlvt1tt) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Un/011, [1!166] II L.L.J, 546; Commlssl1Jner of lncomt-ltu: v, Dewan Bahadur Rmngopal Miiis, 41 I.T.R. 280 and Pandit Banarsl Das Bhanot v. Stall of Madhya PradtJ'il, 9 S.T.C. 388, referre\I to. C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1421 of C 1966. Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 8, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 281 of 1963, Debi Pal, R. K. Chaudhuri and B. P. Maheshwarl, for the D appellant and the Intervener. D. Narsaraju and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. l and 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Slkrl, J, On January 24,' 1963, the Commissioner of Income- tax, West Bengal, sent the following notice to Smt. Kolawati Har- lalka, appellant before us, hereinafter referred to as the assessee : "Sub : lncome·tax assessments of 1952-53 to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.