L. HAZARI MAL KUTHIALA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, AMBALA CANTT.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 135/1958Supreme Court[1961] 1 S.C.R. 89227 September 1960Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's failure to consult the Central Board of Revenue, while a procedural lapse, did not render his order ineffective. The provision for consultation was deemed directory, and the assessee could not question the Commissioner's power on this ground. The Tribunal relied on precedents like State of U.P. v. Manmohan Lal Srivastava and K. S. Srinivasan v. Union of India. Regarding jurisdiction, the Tribunal found that even if the Commissioner's order referred to the Indian Income-tax Act, the exercise of power could be attributed to a valid jurisdiction. The Tribunal clarified that while Section 5(7A) of the Patiala Act specifically dealt with the transfer of pending cases, Section 5(5) provided a general power for the distribution of work, which could be exercised for non-pending cases. Therefore, the Commissioner's order arranging for the assessment of the appellant's case by the Ambala officer under Section 5(5) was valid, as it constituted a distribution of work and not an invalid transfer of a non-pending case. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant firm, L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala, was assessed for income tax for the account year 1945-46 under the law then in force in Kapurthala State. Following integration into Pepsu, the Patiala Income-tax Act, 2001, was applied. Subsequently, the Indian Finance Act, 1950, extended the Indian Income-tax Act to Part B States, repealing their local income-tax laws except for specific purposes. On November 4, 1953, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, acting under Section 5(5) and (7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, directed that the appellant's assessment be handled by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, instead of the ordinarily competent officer in Patiala. On March 12, 1955, the Ambala officer issued a notice under Section 34 of the Patiala Income-tax Act for reassessment due to suspected underassessment. The appellant challenged this in the Punjab High Court, which dismissed their petition. This appeal followed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 34 of the Patiala Income-tax Act of Samvat 2001, or if only the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Patiala, was competent under Section 64(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, rendering the Commissioner's transfer order ultra vires. Assessee's Contention: The transfer of the case by the Commissioner was incompetent and ultra vires, as only the locally situated Income-tax Officer in Patiala had jurisdiction under Section 64(1). The Ambala officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 34 of the Patiala Act. Revenue's Contention: The Commissioner had the power to transfer cases under Section 5(5) and (7A) of the Patiala Income-tax Act, and the subsequent notice was validly issued by the designated officer. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax, in acting under Section 5(5) of the Patiala Income-tax Act, was required to consult the Minister-in-Charge, whose place was taken by the Central Board of Revenue under the Indian Finance Act, 1950, and if failure to consult rendered the order ineffective. Assessee's Contention: The Commissioner's order was invalid due to the failure to consult the Central Board of Revenue, as mandated by the relevant provisions. Revenue's Contention: The provision for consultation was directory, and its non-compliance did not invalidate the Commissioner's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(5),Section 5(7A),Section 34,Section 64(1),Section 13

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] L. HAZARI MAL KUTHIALA v. THE IXCOME-TAX OFFICER, 8PECIAL CIRCLE, AMBALA CANTT. (S. K. DAS, Ill. HIDAYATULLAil, K. c. DAS GUP'l'A, J.C. SHAH a.n<l N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANOAR, ,J,J.) /ncomt-tax--Co1111nissionrr's power of transfer-Sfalulor.Y pro- tJision for consulting the Central Board of Reve1u1e-/j mandatOT)'- 1·ransftr of pending and non~pendi1zg cases-Pati~la Inconze-tax Act of Samvat 2oor s. 5, sub-ss. (5). (7A). s. 34-Indtan Jncume-ta.t Act, r922 (II of r922), s. 64(r).- -lndia11 Finance Act, r950 (26 of r950), S. IJ.

The appellant firm which carried on business as forest lessees and timber merchants in tl1e former Kapnrthala State \\·as assessed to, and paid, income tax, for the accoqnt year 1945-46 under the Income-tax law which was th•n in force in the said State. Subsequently Kapurthala State integrated into what was known as Pepsu and the l'atiala Income-tax Act, 2001, was made applicable and came into force in the integrated State.

Lat•" still the Indian Finance Act, 1950 (i6 of 1c.i50), applied the Indian Income-tax Act to Part B States which had emerged as a result of political changes ands. 13 of the Indian Finance

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 34

All 288 judgments and leading authorities on Section 34 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →