COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA & ANR. vs. ANIL KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY & ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 205/1966Supreme Court[1967] 3 S.C.R. 32230 March 1967Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI OF7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, was assessed for the assessment year 1947-48 by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), District I(2), Calcutta. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner resulted in a favorable order. The Department appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was filed by the ITO, District VI, Calcutta, as the assessee had shifted residence in 1954 to an area within the jurisdiction of ITO, District VI. The assessee objected that the appeal was incompetent as it was not filed by the original assessing officer. The Tribunal rejected this objection. The High Court, on reference, answered the question against the Revenue, finding new facts not present in the Tribunal's statement of case.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Income Tax Officer, District VI, Calcutta, was a proper person to file the appeal. The Court reasoned that under Section 33(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the Commissioner of Income Tax has the right to appeal, and the ITO acts ministerially under the Commissioner's direction. The selected ITO must have some concern with the assessee. While the original assessing officer may be concerned, they are not exclusively so. If the assessee has shifted residence, the ITO of the new jurisdiction acquires jurisdiction as per Section 64(2). The Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 66 by introducing new facts not present in the statement of the case. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and answered the question in favor of the Revenue, holding that the ITO with jurisdiction over the assessee's new residence could be directed to file the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed by a proper person (question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 33(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922)? Assessee's contention: The appeal was incompetent as it was filed by the ITO, District VI, Calcutta, and not by the ITO, District I(2), Calcutta, who had made the original assessment. Revenue's contention: The ITO, District VI, Calcutta, had jurisdiction over the assessee due to the change in residence, and therefore, was a proper person to file the appeal under the direction of the Commissioner, as per Section 33(2). The High Court erred by considering new facts not on record and exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 66.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 33(2),Section 66,Section 64(2),Section 5(7)(a),Section 5(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL, A CALCUTTA & ANR. v. ANIL KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY & ANR.

March 30, 1967 [J. C. SHAH,.:S. M. SIKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.)

Indiall [T1come Tax Act, 1922· (11 of 1962) Ss. 33 (2), and 66- Proper person to file appeal, who is-New facts, juri iction of Hlgli Court.

On the success of the assessee's appeal against an assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, District I (2), the Department appealed to the Tribunal. This was filed by the Income Tax Officer, District VI, in whose juri iction the assessee had shifted his n!s-idencc.

The assessee objected that the appeal was incompetent as it was not filed by the Income Tax Officer who 1had made the assessment.

The Tribunal rejected the objec- tion.

On reference, the High Court sent for the records looked into them and on new facts, answered the question against the Revenue.

In appeal by special leave HELD.-The Income Tax Officer. District VI, had juri iction over the assessee and he could be directed by the Commissioner to file the appeal. B c D Under S. 33(2), the person who has a right to appeal is the Commis- sioner of Income Tax and not the Income Tax Officer. · The In

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 66

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →