LexM/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Mr1. Htm Nalini
JiuJ.h
.
••
ilfrs. /solyru
Sorojba.shini Bo!t
1962
F1hru"1J 19.
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I9e2) SUPP.
house simply because Mrs. Boso said in hnr appli·
cation for letters of administration that the house
belonged to Mrs. )fitter. It 11p1wars th:it after the
death of Mrs. '.\Jitter the thrt>e sisterR put forward
three separate wills each in her f:wour and there
was no question of one sister acting on Any repre-
sentation made by another. 'Ve are therefore
Of Opinion that llO question of PS(Oppcl ariRf'8 in
this case.
The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dis-
missed: N(• order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
;\tfS. SOORAJ!lfULL NAGAR:'IIULL
"·
COM.\IISSIONER OF IXCO:llE-TAX, CALCUTTA
(And connected appeal)
(~. K. DAS, III. HIDAYATGLLAH and .J.C. SHAIJ, J.T.)
Income Tax-Order nf Tribu.nal--Application.s by a.<S<ssee
and Commi.,sioner of Income-tax to state a cn.se, diJJmissr.d byl
lliqh Court-Appeal to Supreme rourt ag1inst nr.kr ofTri.huna
-If maintainable-Indian /ncomr-ta.t Act, J.~22 (II of /.922)'
ss. 33(4), 66(2)-Cons!itution of India, Art. 130.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal pa.scd an order
•· 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act disposing of an appeal.
The asscssec as well as the Con1mis.,ioner of Incorne-tax,
Calcutta, applied to the High Court for orders requiring the
Tribunal to state a case under s. 66(2), wl1ich applications
were dismiss1:d by the 1-Iigh Court.
l'hc asscssce ancl the
Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to thr: Suprcu1c- Court
against the order of the Tribunal, ":ith speci::tl leave.
·rhc
main contention before the Supreme Go1:rt was that cvi:o:n
if
the appeal .agaiust the order of the Hi~h Court under s. 66(2)
fails on merits, the court has pO\VCr to consider the appeal
against the order of the Tribunal.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
307
Held, that when the aggrieved party approaches the
High Court under a taxing statue for an order calling for a
statement of the case and the High Court rejects the appli-
cation, this Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 186 of
the Constitution of India will not in the absence of special or
exceptional circumstances allow the order of the High Court
to be by-passed by entertaining an appeal directly against the
order of the Tribunal under the taxing Act.
The Supreme
Court will take this view even if an appeal has been filed
aga>nst the order of the High Court as well.
Ohandi Prasad Ohhokhani v. State of Bihar, ( 1962)
2 S.C.R. 276, Dhakesv:ari OottonMills Ltd. v. Oommissioner of
Income·lax, West Bengal, [1955] I S.C.R. 941 and Sardar
Baldev Singh v. Oommissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Ajmer,
[1961]1 S.C.R. 482, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 238 and 239 of 1961.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated March 28, 1957, of the Income-tar
Appellate Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) in I.T.A. Nos.
722 and 7341 of 1954-55.
R. J. Kol,ah, D. H. Dwarkadas and B.P. Mahe,sh-
wari, for the appellant in C.A. No. 238 of 1961 and
the respondent in C.A. No. 239 of 1961.
K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta, for the
respondent in C.A. No. 238 of 1961 and respondent
in C.A. No. 239 of 1961.
1962. February 19. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SHAH, J.-The assessees and the Commis-
sioner have preferred appeals against the order of
the Tribunal passed under s. 33( 4) of the Indian In-
come-tax Act, after their applications of the High
Court of Calcutta for orders requiring the Tri-
bunal to state a case under s. 66(2) Wtlre dismis-
sed.
Counsel for the :1Ssessees contends that everi
if his appeal against the order of tbe High Court
under s. 66(2) fails on the merits, this Court has
1962
M/s. Soorajmull
Nagarmull
v.
OommiJsiontr of
lncome·tax, Calcuttr
Shch J,
1962
/&Ifs. Sootajrn-l!i
Nag«rmull
••
Com'ninion~r rJ
Jncom~tat, Ca/c 1t'
Sh2h J,
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!l62] SUPJ'.
power to consider their appeal against the order of
the Tribunal. This Court in Chandi Prawd Chho-
khani v. The State of Bihm·,(') in dealing with cirnes
where against the order passed by a Tax Tribunal,
without appealing against the order of the High
Court refusing tr, call for the statement of the case
set out the practice as follows:
(a) When• the aggrieved party approaches
the High Court under a taxing Stntute
for an order cnlling for a statement of
the caso and the High Court r<·jects the
appiication, this CouExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.