M. CHOCKALINGAM & ANOTHER versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS & ANOTHER

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 12-10-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. SUPREMECOURT REPORTS 
599 
M. CHOCKALINGAM & ANOTHER 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 
MADRAS & ANOTHER 
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HmAYATULLAH and 
J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Income Ta.,,-Rectification of mistake-Assessee, if mu•t be 
given notice and an opportunity of being heard-Principle of 
natural justice, if violated-Income-tax Act, 1922 (11of1922), 
"· 35, 18A(2), (3), (6) fifth proviso, (8)-Income Tax Rul<". 
1922, r. 48. 
The appellants had not paid advance tax according to 
their own estimate of the income for the assessment years 1951-
52 and 1952-53 and they were liable to penal interest' under 
s. 18A (8) of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer 
overlooked this fact and did not add penal interest to the tax 
leviable. 
In 1956, he started proceedings under s. 35 of the 
.. \ct for the rectification of the assessment and ordered the levy 
of penal interest without sending notice to the appellants. 
Against this order the appellants moved the Commissioner of 
Income Tax in revision. They were not heard by the Commis-
sioner and were informed by the Income Tax Officer that their 
applications were rejected. The appellants challenged the orders 
before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and 
the petitions were dismissed. It was urged by the respondents 
in thls Court that the fifth proviso tu sub-s.(6) could not apply 
to a case of penal interest leviable under sub-s.(8) ofs. l8A 
since that sub-section was mandatory and that the fifth proviso 
to s. 18A (6) did not override the mandatory character of 
sub-s. (8). 
Held, that the fifth proviso to sub-s. (6) does apply to a 
case arising under sub-s. (8). Sub-section (6) is expressly made 
applicable and the discretion contemplated under the fifth pro-
viso read with r. 48 is open not only in cases arising under aub-
ss. (2) and (3) of s. IBA but also in cases arising under sub-s(8). 
There is nothing to show that in applying sub-s.(6) any of the 
provisos are to be left out. 
Gursahai 
Saigal v. 
The OommiBsioiur of lnWM-tax 
Punjab, (1963] 3 8.0.R. 893 and Income-tax Officer, Oirck II, 
19f2 
Ottei1r, 12. 
1962 
M. Chockalingam 
v. 
::ommissiotur of 
&ome·tax, Madrar 
Hitfoyatulloh, J. 
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
Ma4ura v. M. R. Vidyasagar, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 613, 
referred to. 
Lai<i Mangeshkar v. Union of India, [1959] 36 I.T.R. 527 
!>eld inapplicable. 
Held, further, that the authorities acting under the Indian 
Income-tax Act have to act judicially. In the present case the 
proviso to s. 35 itself makes it incumbent upon the Income-tax 
Officer to give notice and a hearing to the assessee when the 
effect of the rectification would be the enhancement of the assess-
ment. The appellants did not receive a notice and were not heard 
and there was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice. 
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Hood Barr•, [1961] 39 
T.C. 683 and Sinha Govindji v. Deputy Chief Controlkr of Im-
port• & Exports, [1962] l S.C.R. 540, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals 
Nos. 37 to 40 of 1962. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated 
September 30,1958, of the Madras High Court in 
Writ Petitions Nos. 501, 502, 514 and 515 of 1956. 
K.N. Rajagopal Sastri and M. 8. K. Ayyangar, 
for the appellants. 
Gopal Singh, R. N. Sachthey and P. D. Menon, 
for the respondents. 
1962. October 12. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
HmAYATULLAH, ].-These are four appeals 
filed by two brothers Chockalingam and Meyyappan 
against a common judgment of the High Court of 
Madras dated September 30, 1958, by which the 
High Court dismissed four petitions under Article 226 
of the Constitution filed by them. Each of the appel-
lants had filed two such petitions for the assessment 
years 1951-52 and 1952-53 in respect of which they 
were ordered to pay penal interest under section 
18 A (8) of the Income-tax Act. The High Court 
i S.C.R. 
SUPREME COUR'f REPORTS 
66i 
certified the cases as fit for appeal to this Court and 
hence the present appeals. 
The 
facts 
are 
these. Chockalingam 
and 
Meyyappan are the sons of one Meyyappa Chettiar. 
At first the assessment was on the Hindu Undivided 
Family but by an order of the High Court <lated 
December 5, 1949, a partial partition in the family 
was recognised from the assessment years 1940-41. 
It is not necessary to narrate the events that transpired 
after the decision of the High Court. The judgment of 
the High Court was given effect to after 1953

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