LexP. V. GODBOLE versus JAGANNATH FAKIRCHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19'1
.fl.C. Pr""4r, fn.tom1·
'f"a.t Offiur, M•klt
Word, Oomboy
>.
~ ~-fttl n•U(lr.'""'41
'~'
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
Court in C. A. No. 5~5 of 1960 and C. As. Nos.
214 and 215 of 1958 but in view of the undertaking
given in the High Court by the Department the
appellants in C. A. No. 705 of 1957 shall bear the
costs of the first and second respondents in this Court
and also in C. A. No. Ci09 of 1958 we would make a
similar order in view of the order of the High Court
granting the certificate.
BY CouRT : In accordance with the opinion
of the majority, the appeal is allowed.
The appell·
ants will pay costs of respondents l and 2 a, per
consent of the parties referred to in the certificate,
~rantrd by the High Court.
A pptal allowtd.
P. V. GODBOLE
v.
JAG.<\NNATH FAKIRCHAND
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR,
A. K. SARKAR,
\.f. HmAYATUJ.LAH and
RA<lllUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
1"cot11•·1'a.c--E•~wd income-Limillllion
for aaau..
nacnt-81111i11g prooi.ion-A pplirJJbilil11 and r,,,..titutionality of-
J..dian 1"cm11<-W.:t Ar.t 1922 (II of 19:!2), •· 34-lndian
J11rmnt·"'-' (,ti.1<11dmr11l) Acl, /.953 (25 of 1953), 88. 18, 31-
Ct>t1t1:111tio11 of fo,(iu, Ari. 14.
In p11rsua11rc of the dir.ctions given by the Appellate
Aldstaut
Couuni~sioncr in
connection with the appeal of
another asscssce, the Income·la< Officer on February 18, 1957,
•~•ued a notice urnler s. 34 ( l) of the Indian Income·tax Act,
J9Z2, to the 1-..po1u.lcnt in rc•pect of the assessment years 1944-
45 \945-46 anrl 1946·47. The re•pondent contended that the
ln~mC•W 0ffiCcr had no jur isdirtion to assess him after four
years of the expiry of the year of assessment. The appellant
'
'
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
131
contended that the serond proviso to s. 34 (3) introduced by
the Amending Act of 1953 saved the proceedings.
Held (per Das, Kapur and Sarkar, J ]., Hidayatullah
and Dayal,lJ., dissenting), that the proceedings were barred
and were not saved by the second proviso to s. 34 (3).
Per Das and Kapur,.JJ.-The second proviso to s. 34 (3)
did not revive the power to asse" which h•d already become
barred by s. 34 (3).
S. C. Prashar, Income-ta.< Officer v. Vasantsen Dwarkadaa,
[1964] Vol. 1 S. C.R. 29 followed.
Per Sarkar, J .-The second
proviso to s. 34 (3) was
unconstitutional as it offended Art,
14 of the Constitution.
The Commi88ioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa v.
Saraar Lakhmir Singh, [1964] Vol. 1 S.C.R. 148, followed.
Per
HidayatuUah
and Dayal, JJ.-The
notice and
proceedings were valid. The asses.men! was governed by the
secnnd proviso to s. 34 (3) as amended in 1953 and bys. 31
of the Amending Act of 1953. The notice was further saved
by the provisions of the Amending Act of 1959.
CIVIL APPl!LLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 585 of 1960.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
September 4, 1957 of the Bombay High Court in
Special Civil Application No. 1400of1957.
K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and P. D. Menoo for
thr Appellants.
J. B.
D.idaclv.mji,
O. C.
Mathur
and
Ravinder Narain for the Rrspondent.
1962. December 12. The following separate
Judgments were delivered by Das, J ., Kapur, J., and
Sarkar, f.
The Judgment of Hidayatullah and
Ra~hubar Dayal, JJ., was delivered by
Hidaya~
tullah, J.
1962
P. V. Godbolt
v.
Jqannath Fal<irchand
1962
P. v. Godlou
v.
J,,.,,..u. Fakirchond
r. """'· J.
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL'.
S. K. DAs, J.-The facts· of this appeal have
been stated by my learned brother Kapur, J.
As I
am in agreement with him, I need not re·state the
facts.
The assessment years were 1944-1945, 1945-
1946 and 1946-4 7.
The notice was issued by the
Income-tax Officer on February 18, 19.57, pursuant
to a direction given by the
Appellate Assistant
Commissioner in an appeal of another assessee. The
only question
is whether the second proviso · to
sub-s (3) of s. 34, as amended in 1953 saves the pro-
ceedings impugned.
For the reasons given by me in S. C. Prashar,
Income-tax Officer v. Vasantsen Dwarkridas ('), in
which judgment has been delivered to-day, I would
dismiss the appeal with costs.
KAPUR, J.-Thi~ is an appeal brought on
behalf of Revenue against the judgment and order
of the High Court of Bombay on a certificate granted
by that Court.
In W. P. No. H00/57 the present respondent
challenged .the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer
to issue notice under s. !H(I) of the Indian Incomc-
tax Act, hereinafter called thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.